-- MySQL dump 10.13  Distrib 5.7.15, for Linux (x86_64)
--
-- Host: localhost    Database: velsen_europarl_final
-- ------------------------------------------------------
-- Server version	5.7.13-0ubuntu0.16.04.2

/*!40101 SET @OLD_CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT=@@CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS=@@CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_COLLATION_CONNECTION=@@COLLATION_CONNECTION */;
/*!40101 SET NAMES utf8 */;
/*!40103 SET @OLD_TIME_ZONE=@@TIME_ZONE */;
/*!40103 SET TIME_ZONE='+00:00' */;
/*!40014 SET @OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS=@@UNIQUE_CHECKS, UNIQUE_CHECKS=0 */;
/*!40014 SET @OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@@FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS, FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=0 */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_SQL_MODE=@@SQL_MODE, SQL_MODE='NO_AUTO_VALUE_ON_ZERO' */;
/*!40111 SET @OLD_SQL_NOTES=@@SQL_NOTES, SQL_NOTES=0 */;

--
-- Table structure for table `document`
--

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `document`;
/*!40101 SET @saved_cs_client     = @@character_set_client */;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = utf8 */;
CREATE TABLE `document` (
  `Id` varchar(45) NOT NULL,
  `path` varchar(100) DEFAULT NULL,
  `content` mediumtext,
  `Original` mediumtext,
  `timestamp` datetime DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
  PRIMARY KEY (`Id`),
  UNIQUE KEY `Id_UNIQUE` (`Id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = @saved_cs_client */;

--
-- Dumping data for table `document`
--

LOCK TABLES `document` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `document` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `document` VALUES ('10010.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10010.txt','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice; efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime; and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10011.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100110.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001100.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001100.txt','The proposals for a second railway package set in motion important initiatives towards strengthening Europe\'s railway system. Opening rail freight services within Member States, and accelerating the process of opening up the international ones, represent a significant step towards deregulating the railway sector. The objectives set by the White Paper for European transport policy up to 2010, as well as the constantly increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads, mean that absolute priority must be accorded to transferring goods traffic from road to rail. Diverting the flow of European freight traffic can succeed in the long term only if railways are high-performing and competitive. The planned harmonisation of the European railway network is therefore to be welcomed, provided that a maximum of safety in rail travel can be guaranteed.','The proposals for a second railway package set in motion important initiatives towards strengthening Europe\'s railway system. Opening rail freight services within Member States, and accelerating the process of opening up the international ones, represent a significant step towards deregulating the railway sector. The objectives set by the White Paper for European transport policy up to 2010, as well as the constantly increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads, mean that absolute priority must be accorded to transferring goods traffic from road to rail. Diverting the flow of European freight traffic can succeed in the long term only if railways are high-performing and competitive. The planned harmonisation of the European railway network is therefore to be welcomed, provided that a maximum of safety in rail travel can be guaranteed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001101.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001101.txt','Mr President, the very title of this item on our agenda indicates the importance of Article 133 in the debate on the extension of qualified majority voting. While its extension to trade in services is an understandable aim, it has little to do with the main issue of institutional reform, which needs to be resolved as a matter of priority the demand contained in point 7 of the joint resolution regarding the extension of external negotiating competence in the field of trade to cover investment has even less to do with this main issue. In view of the rather dim prospects of success, I do not think it would be a wise move to burden the Intergovernmental Conference with another complex and controversial topic. Given the current state of negotiations, it is doubtful whether even an extension of the conference to the Sunday, along with the customary extra hour that is gained when the clocks go back, would be sufficient to ensure that this question, along with all the others, will be properly resolved.','Mr President, the very title of this item on our agenda indicates the importance of Article 133 in the debate on the extension of qualified majority voting. While its extension to trade in services is an understandable aim, it has little to do with the main issue of institutional reform, which needs to be resolved as a matter of priority; the demand contained in point 7 of the joint resolution regarding the extension of external negotiating competence in the field of trade to cover investment has even less to do with this main issue. In view of the rather dim prospects of success, I do not think it would be a wise move to burden the Intergovernmental Conference with another complex and controversial topic. Given the current state of negotiations, it is doubtful whether even an extension of the conference to the Sunday, along with the customary extra hour that is gained when the clocks go back, would be sufficient to ensure that this question, along with all the others, will be properly resolved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001102.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001102.txt','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages; in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001103.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001103.txt','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001104.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001104.txt','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001105.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001106.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001106.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001107.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001108.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001108.txt','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001109.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001109.txt','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless unsatisfactory from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless \"unsatisfactory\" from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause; it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100111.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100111.txt','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001110.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001111.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001111.txt','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001112.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001113.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001114.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001114.txt','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001115.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001115.txt','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001116.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001116.txt','Mr President, I view the expiry of the Euratom Treaty as an opportunity for Europe to phase out nuclear energy. Yet today\'s vote on the Euratom programme has endorsed follow-up funding for nuclear research. This is set out in Amendment No 12, for example, which provides funding for research into the safety of existing reactors (with priority for reactors in the candidate countries), as well as reactors of the new generation. In other words, it safeguards future nuclear power plants. Yet research should be targeting non-nuclear energies, especially renewable energies, in order to make a contribution to the progressive phasing-out of nuclear energy in Europe. This is why we rejected not only Amendment No 12 but also the entire Euratom programme in today\'s vote.','Mr President, I view the expiry of the Euratom Treaty as an opportunity for Europe to phase out nuclear energy. Yet today\'s vote on the Euratom programme has endorsed follow-up funding for nuclear research. This is set out in Amendment No 12, for example, which provides funding for research into the safety of existing reactors (with priority for reactors in the candidate countries), as well as reactors of the new generation. In other words, it safeguards future nuclear power plants. Yet research should be targeting non-nuclear energies, especially renewable energies, in order to make a contribution to the progressive phasing-out of nuclear energy in Europe. This is why we rejected not only Amendment No 12 but also the entire Euratom programme in today\'s vote.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001117.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001117.txt','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001118.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001119.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001119.txt','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100112.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100112.txt','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001120.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001120.txt','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001121.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001121.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001122.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001122.txt','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies; but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001123.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001123.txt','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea; that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001124.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001124.txt','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001125.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001125.txt','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001126.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001126.txt','I rejected the report on the ‘Czech Republic’s application for membership of the European Union and the stage of negotiations reached’ because Parliament rejected the amendment submitted by the honourable member Matti Wuori. A disproportionately large number of breakdowns occurred during the preparations for putting the nuclear reactor Temelin into operation. In addition, environmental sustainability tests are not being carried out to an adequate extent, and the central parts of the reactor have not undergone crucial monitoring by international experts.','I rejected the report on the ‘Czech Republic’s application for membership of the European Union and the stage of negotiations reached’ because Parliament rejected the amendment submitted by the honourable member Matti Wuori. A disproportionately large number of breakdowns occurred during the preparations for putting the nuclear reactor Temelin into operation. In addition, environmental sustainability tests are not being carried out to an adequate extent, and the central parts of the reactor have not undergone crucial monitoring by international experts.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001127.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001127.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade; in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001128.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001129.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001129.txt','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100113.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001130.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001130.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001131.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001131.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001132.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001132.txt','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001133.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001133.txt','Mr President, considerations of time have hitherto prevented me from congratulating the rapporteur, but today it is out of conviction that I refrain from doing so. Let me say at the outset that I support Mr Pirker\'s viewpoint, to which I refer in order to avoid repetition. The report raises a number of issues which, as I see it, have not been resolved. How will an equal distribution of applicants for asylum in the EU be achieved if standards vary because Member States are obliged to retain higher standards? How is unrestricted freedom of movement for third-country nationals while their application for asylum is in progress to be reconciled with the public\'s need for security and with concerns that the procedure should be speeded up? How do we explain to our citizens a regulation that ensures applicants for asylum access to the labour market as soon as possible, whilst they themselves may be unemployed? If the way the EU worked were as transparent as we would all like it to be, one would end up wondering how our citizens would vote in response to proposals of this sort.','Mr President, considerations of time have hitherto prevented me from congratulating the rapporteur, but today it is out of conviction that I refrain from doing so. Let me say at the outset that I support Mr Pirker\'s viewpoint, to which I refer in order to avoid repetition. The report raises a number of issues which, as I see it, have not been resolved. How will an equal distribution of applicants for asylum in the EU be achieved if standards vary because Member States are obliged to retain higher standards? How is unrestricted freedom of movement for third-country nationals while their application for asylum is in progress to be reconciled with the public\'s need for security and with concerns that the procedure should be speeded up? How do we explain to our citizens a regulation that ensures applicants for asylum access to the labour market as soon as possible, whilst they themselves may be unemployed? If the way the EU worked were as transparent as we would all like it to be, one would end up wondering how our citizens would vote in response to proposals of this sort.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001134.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001134.txt','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001135.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001135.txt','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001136.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001137.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001138.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001138.txt','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001139.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001139.txt','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100114.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001140.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001141.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001142.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001142.txt','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001143.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001144.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001144.txt','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001145.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001146.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001146.txt','On behalf of the Members belonging to the Austrian Freedom Party, I wish to explain our vote on the van Hulten report. The reason why we voted in favour of Amendment No 40 is that we advocate a new Bureau decision leaving no loopholes permitting additional mileage allowances and payments for extra time. We therefore advocate that the Bureau decision of 8 May 2003 should be revised to allow for the reimbursement of costs actually incurred. We voted against Amendment No 1, tabled by the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, believing as we do that it could be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the retention of the 28 May 2003 decision on costs, with its hidden lump-sum allowances. In the final vote, though, we nevertheless voted against the report, as it fails to deal with such issues as the demand for a single venue for the European Parliament or the abolition of allowances for Fridays in Strasbourg. Having considered all the arguments, I wish to emphasise that the decision to reimburse only those travel expenses that are actually incurred met with our wholehearted support, although, at the same time, I regret the failure to take on board many of the amendments.','On behalf of the Members belonging to the Austrian Freedom Party, I wish to explain our vote on the van Hulten report. The reason why we voted in favour of Amendment No 40 is that we advocate a new Bureau decision leaving no loopholes permitting additional mileage allowances and payments for extra time. We therefore advocate that the Bureau decision of 8 May 2003 should be revised to allow for the reimbursement of costs actually incurred. We voted against Amendment No 1, tabled by the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, believing as we do that it could be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the retention of the 28 May 2003 decision on costs, with its hidden lump-sum allowances. In the final vote, though, we nevertheless voted against the report, as it fails to deal with such issues as the demand for a single venue for the European Parliament or the abolition of allowances for Fridays in Strasbourg. Having considered all the arguments, I wish to emphasise that the decision to reimburse only those travel expenses that are actually incurred met with our wholehearted support, although, at the same time, I regret the failure to take on board many of the amendments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001147.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001148.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001148.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001149.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001149.txt','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100115.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100115.txt','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001150.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001150.txt','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001151.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001151.txt','Data protection is a typical example of one area where it makes real sense to create central control points. The existing juxtaposition of countless Community data protection regulations, which are called any number of different things to boot, is neither conducive to effective legal protection, nor does it make for a transparent legal situation. The continued existence of national control points is beyond doubt. Legal protection must be provided as close to the citizens as possible. Not only will the amalgamation of Community control points have a positive effect in terms of transparency and legal clarity, it will also help keep costs down. At long last, a constructive, truly expedient measure at Community level.','Data protection is a typical example of one area where it makes real sense to create central control points. The existing juxtaposition of countless Community data protection regulations, which are called any number of different things to boot, is neither conducive to effective legal protection, nor does it make for a transparent legal situation. The continued existence of national control points is beyond doubt. Legal protection must be provided as close to the citizens as possible. Not only will the amalgamation of Community control points have a positive effect in terms of transparency and legal clarity, it will also help keep costs down. At long last, a constructive, truly expedient measure at Community level.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001152.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001152.txt','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001153.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001153.txt','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001154.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001155.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001155.txt','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001156.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001157.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001157.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001158.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001159.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100116.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001160.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001160.txt','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001161.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001161.txt','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001162.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001162.txt','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001163.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001164.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001165.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001165.txt','The reduction in the incidence of suspected fraud and irregularities in 2001, by 37% over against the preceding year, obscures the report\'s real message, which is a powerful one. The reality is that, in comparison to previous years, this is the second highest level that figures for suspected fraud have reached. These results, which emerge from the report, give cause for concern. Although there have been improvements in the combating of fraud, it seems utterly impossible to get misuse or the irregular use of EU funds under control. I repeat my long-standing criticism that the structures mean that abuses are inherent in the system. I appeal to the Member States to make greater efforts in this area in order to put an end to these abuses. Cooperation with other Member States, as well as closer checks at home, is absolutely vital, and not just in view of the imminent enlargement.','The reduction in the incidence of suspected fraud and irregularities in 2001, by 37% over against the preceding year, obscures the report\'s real message, which is a powerful one. The reality is that, in comparison to previous years, this is the second highest level that figures for suspected fraud have reached. These results, which emerge from the report, give cause for concern. Although there have been improvements in the combating of fraud, it seems utterly impossible to get misuse or the irregular use of EU funds under control. I repeat my long-standing criticism that the structures mean that abuses are inherent in the system. I appeal to the Member States to make greater efforts in this area in order to put an end to these abuses. Cooperation with other Member States, as well as closer checks at home, is absolutely vital, and not just in view of the imminent enlargement.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001166.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001166.txt','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001167.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001167.txt','Mr President, the information on the vote on request for urgent procedure on administrative cooperation was not supplied to me in due time, or rather, it was not delivered at all, and, for that reason, I am unable to vote in favour of it.','Mr President, the information on the vote on request for urgent procedure on administrative cooperation was not supplied to me in due time, or rather, it was not delivered at all, and, for that reason, I am unable to vote in favour of it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001168.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001169.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001169.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 95% of live animal transports are by road and we are all familiar with the images of tormented animals confined in a very narrow space for days on end as they are transported across Europe and beyond. There can be no doubt that something needs to be done. I support the proposals made in this report that will help to improve standards in live animal transports, such as setting minimum standards for the vehicles used, but above all the introduction of additional supervisory measures, because however good the rules may be, they will not work if there are no controls. There are already plenty of rules, but enforcement and controls are lacking. Amendment No 2, of which I am a co-signatory, is designed to clarify the term ‘journey’ in order to prevent the maximum duration of transport being exceeded by the back door, so to speak. Transport times must be reduced in any case. The vote has been brought forward to today. Amendment No 81 states, and I quote: ‘sequences of travel times may be repeated during a journey’, which means there can be repeated journeys and the time limits can be avoided. As a block vote has been applied for, it is no longer possible to vote against Amendment No 81 on its own. I consider that unacceptable. The best thing would be for animals to be transported as little as possible. That is probably pie in the sky. We must be clear that sales-based support for live animal exports is an incentive and that we are therefore deceiving ourselves if we want to cut animal transports to a minimum so long as such support continues.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 95% of live animal transports are by road and we are all familiar with the images of tormented animals confined in a very narrow space for days on end as they are transported across Europe and beyond. There can be no doubt that something needs to be done. I support the proposals made in this report that will help to improve standards in live animal transports, such as setting minimum standards for the vehicles used, but above all the introduction of additional supervisory measures, because however good the rules may be, they will not work if there are no controls. There are already plenty of rules, but enforcement and controls are lacking. Amendment No 2, of which I am a co-signatory, is designed to clarify the term ‘journey’ in order to prevent the maximum duration of transport being exceeded by the back door, so to speak. Transport times must be reduced in any case. The vote has been brought forward to today. Amendment No 81 states, and I quote: ‘sequences of travel times may be repeated during a journey’, which means there can be repeated journeys and the time limits can be avoided. As a block vote has been applied for, it is no longer possible to vote against Amendment No 81 on its own. I consider that unacceptable. The best thing would be for animals to be transported as little as possible. That is probably pie in the sky. We must be clear that sales-based support for live animal exports is an incentive and that we are therefore deceiving ourselves if we want to cut animal transports to a minimum so long as such support continues.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100117.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100117.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001170.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001171.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001171.txt','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001172.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001173.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001173.txt','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001174.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001174.txt','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001175.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001176.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001176.txt','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001177.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001177.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001178.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001178.txt','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001179.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100118.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100118.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001180.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001180.txt','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001181.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001181.txt','Madam President, I must take this opportunity to inform you that a party of schoolchildren invited by me for this week – tomorrow to be precise – has cancelled the visit. I also heard, however, that mine was not the only group affected, but that around half the invited groups had cancelled their visits this week. The children in question, or their parents, fear that security measures in this House are inadequate and that the children would be in danger if they visited Parliament. Let me request you, then, to supply the public with extensive information about the adequacy of the security arrangements. Should this not be possible, consideration should be given to a general suspension of visits. I myself have also another concern: I would welcome it if those visitors\' quotas that cannot be made use of because visits have been cancelled, could be set aside for future dates rather than be lost, so that these groups that, for understandable reasons, are not visiting Parliament now, may make up for it at a later date.','Madam President, I must take this opportunity to inform you that a party of schoolchildren invited by me for this week – tomorrow to be precise – has cancelled the visit. I also heard, however, that mine was not the only group affected, but that around half the invited groups had cancelled their visits this week. The children in question, or their parents, fear that security measures in this House are inadequate and that the children would be in danger if they visited Parliament. Let me request you, then, to supply the public with extensive information about the adequacy of the security arrangements. Should this not be possible, consideration should be given to a general suspension of visits. I myself have also another concern: I would welcome it if those visitors\' quotas that cannot be made use of because visits have been cancelled, could be set aside for future dates rather than be lost, so that these groups that, for understandable reasons, are not visiting Parliament now, may make up for it at a later date.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001182.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001182.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001183.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001184.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001184.txt','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001185.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001185.txt','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001186.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001186.txt','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001187.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001188.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001189.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100119.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100119.txt','Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which really addresses the problem, and to thank him for it. Austria has always played an important part when it comes to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and has also contributed more than its fair share to solving the resultant problems. I would particularly like to thank Mr Nassauer for adding to what the rapporteur has said in this respect. However, it is high time a satisfactory pan-European solution was found to this problem. It is not enough just to call for solidarity between all the Member States. As regards reception of persons by the Member States, the Commission proposal only talks about Community solidarity, but this concept needs to be firmed up in the spirit of Article 63(2)(b) of the Treaty. The purpose of the directive as described in Article 1 should also include the idea that displaced persons should be allocated to the Member States with due regard for their absorptive capacity. However, the solidarity mechanism operating between the Member States should also cover both aspects, that is to say both the financial and personal aspects of solidarity.','Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which really addresses the problem, and to thank him for it. Austria has always played an important part when it comes to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and has also contributed more than its fair share to solving the resultant problems. I would particularly like to thank Mr Nassauer for adding to what the rapporteur has said in this respect. However, it is high time a satisfactory pan-European solution was found to this problem. It is not enough just to call for solidarity between all the Member States. As regards reception of persons by the Member States, the Commission proposal only talks about Community solidarity, but this concept needs to be firmed up in the spirit of Article 63(2)(b) of the Treaty. The purpose of the directive as described in Article 1 should also include the idea that displaced persons should be allocated to the Member States with due regard for their absorptive capacity. However, the solidarity mechanism operating between the Member States should also cover both aspects, that is to say both the financial and personal aspects of solidarity.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001190.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001191.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001191.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001192.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001192.txt','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001193.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001193.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001194.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found; the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs; European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy; Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001195.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001196.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001197.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001198.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001199.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10012.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100120.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001200.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001200.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001201.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001201.txt','Mr President, in view of the way in which the list of speakers has been manipulated today in order to put paid to my colleague Mr Hager, I have only this to say to you: if the Austrian referee Benko had broken all the rules in the game between France and Portugal, as Madam President has done today, then France would not even have reached the final. That is the funny side of it. The less amusing aspect of the conflict we are engaged in today is that there are several hundred delegates sitting here who are actually willing to accept this without protest!','Mr President, in view of the way in which the list of speakers has been manipulated today in order to put paid to my colleague Mr Hager, I have only this to say to you: if the Austrian referee Benko had broken all the rules in the game between France and Portugal, as Madam President has done today, then France would not even have reached the final. That is the funny side of it. The less amusing aspect of the conflict we are engaged in today is that there are several hundred delegates sitting here who are actually willing to accept this without protest!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001202.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001202.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts’ second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann’s justified criticism!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts’ second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann’s justified criticism!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001203.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001203.txt','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001204.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001204.txt','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001205.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001206.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001207.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001207.txt','Mr President, I have had a dream in which Mr Fatuzzo\'s daughter phoned up my son, who is also studying law, and asked him whether he approved of the way I voted on Mr Duff\'s report. I am unable to give out his response to this, as I awoke with something of a shock. I therefore want to make it perfectly clear that we voted in favour of the report even though I see some of the problems as being the other way around. My primary difference of opinion with the rapporteur is that I believe that the possible problem of the supreme courts coming to divergent judgments in matters of basic rights has not been resolved. As a former supreme court judge, I know what I am talking about. Despite this, the institutionalisation of basic rights prevails, and so the vote has been in favour of the report as a whole.','Mr President, I have had a dream in which Mr Fatuzzo\'s daughter phoned up my son, who is also studying law, and asked him whether he approved of the way I voted on Mr Duff\'s report. I am unable to give out his response to this, as I awoke with something of a shock. I therefore want to make it perfectly clear that we voted in favour of the report even though I see some of the problems as being the other way around. My primary difference of opinion with the rapporteur is that I believe that the possible problem of the supreme courts coming to divergent judgments in matters of basic rights has not been resolved. As a former supreme court judge, I know what I am talking about. Despite this, the institutionalisation of basic rights prevails, and so the vote has been in favour of the report as a whole.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001208.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001209.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001209.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100121.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100121.txt','Mr President, paragraph 46 of the report calls on the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety to report to Parliament on the implementation of safety measures for Temelin before accession negotiations are concluded. This requirement is proper and important because the operators are currently not even satisfying key minimum safety requirements such as renovation of the much discussed 28.8 m level. The much criticised quality of unsafe valves has not been improved either. The pipes still do not have a second protective coating as European standards require. The first protective coating is inadequate in any case. The Temelin nuclear power station does not therefore at all satisfy the conditions laid down by the Council working party as agreed in the Melk Process. If this is disregarded, the Commission’s attempt, early this month, to create new safety standards for nuclear power stations can be considered a failure from the outset.','Mr President, paragraph 46 of the report calls on the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety to report to Parliament on the implementation of safety measures for Temelin before accession negotiations are concluded. This requirement is proper and important because the operators are currently not even satisfying key minimum safety requirements such as renovation of the much discussed 28.8 m level. The much criticised quality of unsafe valves has not been improved either. The pipes still do not have a second protective coating as European standards require. The first protective coating is inadequate in any case. The Temelin nuclear power station does not therefore at all satisfy the conditions laid down by the Council working party as agreed in the Melk Process. If this is disregarded, the Commission’s attempt, early this month, to create new safety standards for nuclear power stations can be considered a failure from the outset.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001210.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001210.txt','Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday\'s majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply. This means, in other words, that today\'s debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee.','Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday\'s majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply. This means, in other words, that today\'s debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001211.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001212.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001213.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regard this amendment of the Directive on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs as a step in the right direction on a long road. Its aims are clear and undisputed. The first aim is to create traceability of foodstuffs back to their origins, in other words maximum transparency. The second is to restore consumer confidence in European food products after the BSE crisis and the dioxin scandal. I believe that reversal of the burden of proof, as proposed in Amendment No 4, is absolutely essential if these aims are to be achieved. The food industry has the necessary information to hand. For those outside the industry, it is sometimes utterly impossible to obtain this information. The present proposal is the first in a series of initiatives based on the White Paper on food safety. It is a start. The Union certainly cannot rest on these laurels. A long road lies ahead of us.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regard this amendment of the Directive on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs as a step in the right direction on a long road. Its aims are clear and undisputed. The first aim is to create traceability of foodstuffs back to their origins, in other words maximum transparency. The second is to restore consumer confidence in European food products after the BSE crisis and the dioxin scandal. I believe that reversal of the burden of proof, as proposed in Amendment No 4, is absolutely essential if these aims are to be achieved. The food industry has the necessary information to hand. For those outside the industry, it is sometimes utterly impossible to obtain this information. The present proposal is the first in a series of initiatives based on the White Paper on food safety. It is a start. The Union certainly cannot rest on these laurels. A long road lies ahead of us.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001214.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001214.txt','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences; the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001215.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001216.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001216.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001217.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001217.txt','The non-attached Members will endorse the joint resolution in the final vote but would like, at the same time, to point out that the position on the question of reforming the Treaties and on the preparation and holding of the Intergovernmental Conference, which your voting behaviour in respect of the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report gave expression to, remains unaltered.','The non-attached Members will endorse the joint resolution in the final vote but would like, at the same time, to point out that the position on the question of reforming the Treaties and on the preparation and holding of the Intergovernmental Conference, which your voting behaviour in respect of the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report gave expression to, remains unaltered.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001218.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001218.txt','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001219.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001219.txt','Mr President, let me say first of all that I appreciate the way we can talk to each other here in a fairly intimate atmosphere. There is no doubt that it is easier to ask important questions than to find the answers to them. The President\'s statement notwithstanding, all of us can only wish these answers to be found, but I want to make allowances all the same for the fact that Laeken saw a very important task performed, that of getting the Convention on track with a president who is not only distinguished but whose appointment also augurs well for the future. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was our most recent opportunity to learn that the success of such a process largely depends on who presides over it, so let me say that the youthful attire of the President-in-Office led me to fear that the Convention would be given a rather ‘young’ and ‘dynamic’ chair. Unlike Mrs Frassoni and Mr Bonde, I was therefore rather pleased to learn that we were still going to give preference to the opinions of those older and wiser – something which marks out the higher cultures. The inauguration of the Convention was, though, the only outstanding achievement. Speaking from an Austrian point of view, I find Point 59 regrettable on the grounds that it has turned out to be very narrow and does not do justice to the need for Europe-wide safety standards.','Mr President, let me say first of all that I appreciate the way we can talk to each other here in a fairly intimate atmosphere. There is no doubt that it is easier to ask important questions than to find the answers to them. The President\'s statement notwithstanding, all of us can only wish these answers to be found, but I want to make allowances all the same for the fact that Laeken saw a very important task performed, that of getting the Convention on track with a president who is not only distinguished but whose appointment also augurs well for the future. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was our most recent opportunity to learn that the success of such a process largely depends on who presides over it, so let me say that the youthful attire of the President-in-Office led me to fear that the Convention would be given a rather ‘young’ and ‘dynamic’ chair. Unlike Mrs Frassoni and Mr Bonde, I was therefore rather pleased to learn that we were still going to give preference to the opinions of those older and wiser – something which marks out the higher cultures. The inauguration of the Convention was, though, the only outstanding achievement. Speaking from an Austrian point of view, I find Point 59 regrettable on the grounds that it has turned out to be very narrow and does not do justice to the need for Europe-wide safety standards.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100122.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001220.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001221.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001221.txt','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001222.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001222.txt','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001223.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001224.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001225.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001226.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001226.txt','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001227.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001227.txt','Mr President, I only wanted to ask Mrs Flemming not to call me “no one”!','Mr President, I only wanted to ask Mrs Flemming not to call me “no one”!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001228.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001229.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100123.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100123.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001230.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001230.txt','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001231.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001231.txt','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001232.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001232.txt','Mr President, I voted against the report before us because it does not live up to the expectations created by the title. The main focus is on religious fundamentalism, with other forms of fundamentalism only being given a brief mention. Even if religious fundamentalism is the most significant form and stands out from other forms, it is nevertheless essential to recognise all forms of fundamentalism if a meaningful debate is to take place. The threats posed by fundamentalism are growing in a way that the events of 11 September suggest involve an enormous contempt for humanity. However, to do justice to the situation we cannot limit ourselves to religious aspects alone. Just as people obsessed with a fundamental order are to be found in all walks of life, this way of thinking is also prevalent throughout society. The logical consequence of recognising this can therefore only be that we should examine this whole area and not concentrate on just one form of this phenomenon, even if it is the form with the most adherents.','Mr President, I voted against the report before us because it does not live up to the expectations created by the title. The main focus is on religious fundamentalism, with other forms of fundamentalism only being given a brief mention. Even if religious fundamentalism is the most significant form and stands out from other forms, it is nevertheless essential to recognise all forms of fundamentalism if a meaningful debate is to take place. The threats posed by fundamentalism are growing in a way that the events of 11 September suggest involve an enormous contempt for humanity. However, to do justice to the situation we cannot limit ourselves to religious aspects alone. Just as people obsessed with a fundamental order are to be found in all walks of life, this way of thinking is also prevalent throughout society. The logical consequence of recognising this can therefore only be that we should examine this whole area and not concentrate on just one form of this phenomenon, even if it is the form with the most adherents.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001233.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001233.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001234.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001234.txt','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001235.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001236.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001237.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001238.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001239.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100124.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100124.txt','For years now, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and this is something on which opinions can differ. They certainly can when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, the popular view will be that the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, is a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at the present time, being told that they will have to work for longer in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','For years now, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and this is something on which opinions can differ. They certainly can when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, the popular view will be that the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, is a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at the present time, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001240.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001241.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001242.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001243.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001244.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001244.txt','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001245.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001246.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001246.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001247.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001247.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word it should be implemented. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word; it should be implemented. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001248.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001248.txt','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001249.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001249.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100125.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001250.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001250.txt','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001251.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001252.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001253.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001253.txt','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001254.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001255.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001256.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001257.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001257.txt','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001258.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001259.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001259.txt','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100126.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001260.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001260.txt','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001261.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001261.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet; this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001262.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001262.txt','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001263.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001264.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001264.txt','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001265.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001265.txt','Madam President, it goes without saying that we must back the joint prosecution of tax fraud in Europe. However, the EU continues to be outsmarted by professional tax fraudsters because our systems are far too complex. We are flinging the doors open wide to such fraudsters and in so doing indirectly encouraging tax fraud. If we are to do anything effective against it, we need not only more effective controls and close cooperation, but also tax laws that are easy to understand. We urgently need a reform of our VAT system, for example. The highly complex dual VAT system where national sales are treated differently from EU sales is a major factor in billions being evaded relatively easily in the EU every year. That is why we need a simpler VAT system that is easier to understand and where all sales in Europe are treated in the same way and not differently, so that tax fraud can actually be combated effectively. Proposals have already been made to this effect we only have to implement them. I therefore propose that we at last introduce the tax card into the VAT system and treat sales the same, not differently, so as to achieve the aims we have set by actually cutting tax fraud.','Madam President, it goes without saying that we must back the joint prosecution of tax fraud in Europe. However, the EU continues to be outsmarted by professional tax fraudsters because our systems are far too complex. We are flinging the doors open wide to such fraudsters and in so doing indirectly encouraging tax fraud. If we are to do anything effective against it, we need not only more effective controls and close cooperation, but also tax laws that are easy to understand. We urgently need a reform of our VAT system, for example. The highly complex dual VAT system where national sales are treated differently from EU sales is a major factor in billions being evaded relatively easily in the EU every year. That is why we need a simpler VAT system that is easier to understand and where all sales in Europe are treated in the same way and not differently, so that tax fraud can actually be combated effectively. Proposals have already been made to this effect; we only have to implement them. I therefore propose that we at last introduce the tax card into the VAT system and treat sales the same, not differently, so as to achieve the aims we have set by actually cutting tax fraud.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001266.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001266.txt','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001267.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001268.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001269.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001269.txt','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim less is more. Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim \"less is more\". Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens; the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100127.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001270.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001271.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001271.txt','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001272.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001272.txt','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001273.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001273.txt','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001274.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001275.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001276.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001277.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001277.txt','Mr President, this is actually the third oil crisis we have had, but it contrasts sharply with the other two. They were political crises of man-made origin, and they came about in 1973 and 1979 with the fall of the Shah regime. For fifteen years now there have clear indications and studies – for example, Global 2000, the report compiled for Jimmy Carter – to the effect that there would be a real shortage in raw materials by the turn of the century. In other words, the third oil crisis we are experiencing now, is here to stay. Whether the price drops again in the short term is of no consequence because there will be a steady upward trend in the long term. It even says in Colin Campbell’s study – anyone interested in having a copy can get one from me – that there will be a shortage of raw materials, i.e. oil, in the early years of the 21st century, the reason being that the production curve has passed its peak. I therefore believe that even demonstrations are onto a loser, because you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon. We will still have oil, but it will not come cheap. In other words, the price of oil will rise to between USD 40 and 60 in the future. There are enough studies to this effect. Even if they should prove to be wrong, now is the time to consider and analyse them. Nor is it an OPEC crisis, because only 40% of the oil produced comes from OPEC countries the remaining 60% comes from non-OPEC countries. If this was just a man-made crisis, the other oil producers could redress the balance.','Mr President, this is actually the third oil crisis we have had, but it contrasts sharply with the other two. They were political crises of man-made origin, and they came about in 1973 and 1979 with the fall of the Shah regime. For fifteen years now there have clear indications and studies – for example, Global 2000, the report compiled for Jimmy Carter – to the effect that there would be a real shortage in raw materials by the turn of the century. In other words, the third oil crisis we are experiencing now, is here to stay. Whether the price drops again in the short term is of no consequence because there will be a steady upward trend in the long term. It even says in Colin Campbell’s study – anyone interested in having a copy can get one from me – that there will be a shortage of raw materials, i.e. oil, in the early years of the 21st century, the reason being that the production curve has passed its peak. I therefore believe that even demonstrations are onto a loser, because you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon. We will still have oil, but it will not come cheap. In other words, the price of oil will rise to between USD 40 and 60 in the future. There are enough studies to this effect. Even if they should prove to be wrong, now is the time to consider and analyse them. Nor is it an OPEC crisis, because only 40% of the oil produced comes from OPEC countries; the remaining 60% comes from non-OPEC countries. If this was just a man-made crisis, the other oil producers could redress the balance.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001278.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001279.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100128.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100128.txt','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001280.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001281.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001281.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001282.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties; not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001283.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001284.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001285.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001286.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001286.txt','Madam President, Europe has a special historical responsibility for the peace process in the Middle East. This means proceeding with great sensitivity and not taking a schoolmasterly line or apportioning blame to one side alone. The fact that the Foreign Minister himself responded to the last peace negotiations by stepping down, serves as a reminder to us that above all in Israel, which is the stable democracy in the region, every step taken by the politicians must have the backing of the majority of the Israeli people. Nevertheless, we would do well not to forget that for all the fine words uttered, the crucial negotiations for peace in the Middle East take place in the USA and not in Europe. Perhaps those EU politicians whose brief it is, have so far been unable to find the right way to act as genuinely neutral and productive mediators in this conflict.','Madam President, Europe has a special historical responsibility for the peace process in the Middle East. This means proceeding with great sensitivity and not taking a schoolmasterly line or apportioning blame to one side alone. The fact that the Foreign Minister himself responded to the last peace negotiations by stepping down, serves as a reminder to us that above all in Israel, which is the stable democracy in the region, every step taken by the politicians must have the backing of the majority of the Israeli people. Nevertheless, we would do well not to forget that for all the fine words uttered, the crucial negotiations for peace in the Middle East take place in the USA and not in Europe. Perhaps those EU politicians whose brief it is, have so far been unable to find the right way to act as genuinely neutral and productive mediators in this conflict.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001287.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001288.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001288.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001289.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100129.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001290.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001291.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001292.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001293.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001293.txt','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001294.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001294.txt','Mr President, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','Mr President, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001295.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001295.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001296.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001296.txt','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001297.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001298.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001298.txt','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another; surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary; avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001299.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001299.txt','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10013.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10013.txt','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100130.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100130.txt','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001300.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001301.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001301.txt','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001302.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001303.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001303.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001304.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001305.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001305.txt','','','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100131.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100131.txt','Mr President, in the course of the last few years there has been a succession of serious tanker disasters world-wide and the countermeasures taken have either been ineffective or not worth mentioning. It is particularly bad this time, not least because it has affected a major European State an incident which could happen again at any time. We urgently require a directive if we are to reduce these risks. The 15 clearly do not suffice. These guarantee – making no claim to be exhaustive – a minimum of 3 things. No tanker or freighter fit only for the scrap heap must ever put into any harbour within the European Union again. All those involved, including the transport agent, are responsible for any ensuing damage, and these individuals are to provide satisfactory assurances. This is the only way of affording the victims the opportunity to make their claims for compensation. However, we must aim higher in the long-term, let there be no mistake about that. In other words, we need real cost-effectiveness for our entire energy supply system.','Mr President, in the course of the last few years there has been a succession of serious tanker disasters world-wide and the countermeasures taken have either been ineffective or not worth mentioning. It is particularly bad this time, not least because it has affected a major European State; an incident which could happen again at any time. We urgently require a directive if we are to reduce these risks. The 15 clearly do not suffice. These guarantee – making no claim to be exhaustive – a minimum of 3 things. No tanker or freighter fit only for the scrap heap must ever put into any harbour within the European Union again. All those involved, including the transport agent, are responsible for any ensuing damage, and these individuals are to provide satisfactory assurances. This is the only way of affording the victims the opportunity to make their claims for compensation. However, we must aim higher in the long-term, let there be no mistake about that. In other words, we need real cost-effectiveness for our entire energy supply system.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100132.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100133.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100133.txt','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100134.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100134.txt','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100135.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100135.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100136.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100137.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100138.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100139.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100139.txt','Mr President, Mr Schulz called me a racist. Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to respond. He described himself as a representative of a country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism. I would never use such an expression, even though many members of my family were murdered during the Holocaust. I would ask Mr Schulz, as a representative of the country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism – his own words – to cite just one, just one, racist comment that I have made in the course of my career in politics. If he is unable to come up with one, then would he please apologise, not for criticising, but for vilifying my character.','Mr President, Mr Schulz called me a racist. Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to respond. He described himself as a representative of a country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism. I would never use such an expression, even though many members of my family were murdered during the Holocaust. I would ask Mr Schulz, as a representative of the country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism – his own words – to cite just one, just one, racist comment that I have made in the course of my career in politics. If he is unable to come up with one, then would he please apologise, not for criticising, but for vilifying my character.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10014.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10014.txt','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100140.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100141.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100142.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100143.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100143.txt','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three left overs plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three \"left overs\" plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100144.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100145.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100145.txt','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100146.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100146.txt','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100147.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100147.txt','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100148.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100148.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100149.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10015.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10015.txt','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100150.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100150.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100151.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100152.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100152.txt','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100153.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100153.txt','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100154.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100155.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100155.txt','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100156.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100156.txt','Mr President, I too voted in favour of the Stenmark report and would like to add that we all know that the costs of enlargement cannot at present be estimated, but that we have to take care that they do not exceed their limits, as the European public will take an unsympathetic view. That means that we must make savings. We often, and passionately, discuss the costs of translation, which are high and likely to rise in future. We should instead be working towards being able to reduce the costs of a seat for Parliament. The public does not understand how we can presume to say that we can solve Europe\'s problems when we are unable to agree on a location.','Mr President, I too voted in favour of the Stenmark report and would like to add that we all know that the costs of enlargement cannot at present be estimated, but that we have to take care that they do not exceed their limits, as the European public will take an unsympathetic view. That means that we must make savings. We often, and passionately, discuss the costs of translation, which are high and likely to rise in future. We should instead be working towards being able to reduce the costs of a seat for Parliament. The public does not understand how we can presume to say that we can solve Europe\'s problems when we are unable to agree on a location.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100157.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100158.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100158.txt','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100159.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100159.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10016.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10016.txt','Mr President, every day, the advocates of a war in the Middle East resort to ever weaker and ever less credible arguments. We are obliged to watch as undisguised attempts are made in the Security Council to use economic aid as a bribe to induce African states to consent to war. Since this House\'s last debate on war in Iraq, though, encouraging things have happened. For the time being, at least, the Turkish parliament has refused to allow the deployment of troops on Turkish territory. In Great Britain, over two hundred Labour Members of Parliament have expressed their opposition to a war. They deserve our respect. Those who oppose the war in Iraq that is being planned are no foes of the United States, but rather defenders of civilisation.','Mr President, every day, the advocates of a war in the Middle East resort to ever weaker and ever less credible arguments. We are obliged to watch as undisguised attempts are made in the Security Council to use economic aid as a bribe to induce African states to consent to war. Since this House\'s last debate on war in Iraq, though, encouraging things have happened. For the time being, at least, the Turkish parliament has refused to allow the deployment of troops on Turkish territory. In Great Britain, over two hundred Labour Members of Parliament have expressed their opposition to a war. They deserve our respect. Those who oppose the war in Iraq that is being planned are no foes of the United States, but rather defenders of civilisation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100160.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100160.txt','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100161.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100161.txt','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100162.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100162.txt','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100163.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100164.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100165.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100166.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100167.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100167.txt','Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo\'s model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe\'s future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions. I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.','Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo\'s model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe\'s future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions. I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100168.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100168.txt','The position of the non-attached Members on the content of the first two decisions of Parliament regarding the Statute for Members has not changed. In order, however, to put an end to the present inactivity on this issue, we have – against the background of recent negotiations with the Council – agreed to the confirmation of these decisions.','The position of the non-attached Members on the content of the first two decisions of Parliament regarding the Statute for Members has not changed. In order, however, to put an end to the present inactivity on this issue, we have – against the background of recent negotiations with the Council – agreed to the confirmation of these decisions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100169.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10017.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100170.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100171.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State; how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified; if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100172.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100173.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100174.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100174.txt','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100175.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100175.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100176.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100177.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100177.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100178.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100178.txt','Obviously it makes sense and we need to combat money laundering. However, there are differing interpretations as to how this can be achieved. If we set minimum penalties in this framework resolution, we shall come up against elementary rule of law problems. If we set minimum penalties, we shall be contradicting cleverly worked-out national criminal codes. We need to approximate, not unify our criminal codes. Under the rule of law and democracy, criminal codes represent very core of national sovereignty and the Member States should therefore be left to set them.','Obviously it makes sense and we need to combat money laundering. However, there are differing interpretations as to how this can be achieved. If we set minimum penalties in this framework resolution, we shall come up against elementary rule of law problems. If we set minimum penalties, we shall be contradicting cleverly worked-out national criminal codes. We need to approximate, not unify our criminal codes. Under the rule of law and democracy, criminal codes represent very core of national sovereignty and the Member States should therefore be left to set them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100179.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10018.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10018.txt','Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport. One of the White Paper\'s proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!','Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport. One of the White Paper\'s proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100180.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100180.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100181.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100181.txt','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100182.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100182.txt','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100183.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100183.txt','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100184.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100185.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100185.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have prepared a speech which essentially repeats what the previous speaker said. I am, unfortunately, in the sad position of having to read out to you a message from Reuters news agency which proves the importance of what we are talking about here. The message was issued at 3.07 p.m., less than 30 minutes ago. It reads: Seoul, 22 injured in accident in South Korean nuclear power station. The precise text reads: 22 workers have been injured in an accident in a South Korean nuclear power station. They were exposed to radioactive radiation when heavy water escaped. This was reported today by the Yonhap news agency.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have prepared a speech which essentially repeats what the previous speaker said. I am, unfortunately, in the sad position of having to read out to you a message from Reuters news agency which proves the importance of what we are talking about here. The message was issued at 3.07 p.m., less than 30 minutes ago. It reads: Seoul, 22 injured in accident in South Korean nuclear power station. The precise text reads: 22 workers have been injured in an accident in a South Korean nuclear power station. They were exposed to radioactive radiation when heavy water escaped. This was reported today by the Yonhap news agency.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100186.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100186.txt','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100187.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100188.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100189.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10019.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10019.txt','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100190.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100190.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100191.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100191.txt','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays; increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100192.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100192.txt','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100193.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100194.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100195.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100195.txt','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100196.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100196.txt','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100197.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100197.txt','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100198.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100198.txt','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report; firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators; secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level; and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100199.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100199.txt','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10020.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10021.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10021.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100210.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100211.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100212.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100213.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100214.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100215.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100216.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100216.txt','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100217.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100218.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100218.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100219.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10022.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10022.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100220.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100221.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100222.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100223.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100224.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100225.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100225.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes; the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully; it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100226.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100227.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100228.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100229.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10023.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10023.txt','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty. Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty\". Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100230.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100231.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100232.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100232.txt','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100233.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100233.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today; for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure; what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100234.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100234.txt','Mr President, the shadow rapporteurs have reached a new compromise on this point and I should therefore like to withdraw Amendment No 76 on behalf of the Greens. We accept this compromise.','Mr President, the shadow rapporteurs have reached a new compromise on this point and I should therefore like to withdraw Amendment No 76 on behalf of the Greens. We accept this compromise.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100235.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100236.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100237.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100238.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100239.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100239.txt','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10024.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100240.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100241.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100242.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100242.txt','Mr President, I am very grateful to Mr Paasilinna, the rapporteur, for addressing his question to the Commission and thereby making a number of things slightly clearer. I also wish to thank Commissioner Liikanen for the position he has publicly taken, but I would like to add that these reports – of which there are several, the whole package in the last couple of weeks – have put us under enormous pressure and that there have been a lot of misunderstandings because we have not always been able to inform each other of amendments that have been made. I would like to point out that these misunderstandings have led to my name being used by the Greens to support the content of the compromise motions, although I had signed nothing for them. Now I find myself back here again. Pressure of time means, however, that I now agree to them and will not withdraw anything. I only actually signed two amendments, not the others. That I had signed the others had evidently been taken as read because of the way I had expressed myself. This is not an accusation levelled at any individuals, but simply further evidence I wish to adduce to demonstrate what happens when we are under pressure of this sort through wanting to go public with this document towards the end of the year. I do not want to have to work in this way again on such a thorny problem in the future. It really is not on!','Mr President, I am very grateful to Mr Paasilinna, the rapporteur, for addressing his question to the Commission and thereby making a number of things slightly clearer. I also wish to thank Commissioner Liikanen for the position he has publicly taken, but I would like to add that these reports – of which there are several, the whole package in the last couple of weeks – have put us under enormous pressure and that there have been a lot of misunderstandings because we have not always been able to inform each other of amendments that have been made. I would like to point out that these misunderstandings have led to my name being used by the Greens to support the content of the compromise motions, although I had signed nothing for them. Now I find myself back here again. Pressure of time means, however, that I now agree to them and will not withdraw anything. I only actually signed two amendments, not the others. That I had signed the others had evidently been taken as read because of the way I had expressed myself. This is not an accusation levelled at any individuals, but simply further evidence I wish to adduce to demonstrate what happens when we are under pressure of this sort through wanting to go public with this document towards the end of the year. I do not want to have to work in this way again on such a thorny problem in the future. It really is not on!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100243.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100243.txt','Mr President, I have just two comments to make. Firstly, the German translation of recital A is incorrect, so please use the English version here. A further point is this: in our calls to the Commission, a mistake has crept in to paragraph 2. I would ask you to delete the following words, as they make no sense in legal terms. After the words ‘WIPO Treaty’, the following four words – ‘on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT)’ must be deleted. It is incorrect. ‘WIPO Treaty’ should stand, and the following four words plus the parentheses must be deleted.','Mr President, I have just two comments to make. Firstly, the German translation of recital A is incorrect, so please use the English version here. A further point is this: in our calls to the Commission, a mistake has crept in to paragraph 2. I would ask you to delete the following words, as they make no sense in legal terms. After the words ‘WIPO Treaty’, the following four words – ‘on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT)’ must be deleted. It is incorrect. ‘WIPO Treaty’ should stand, and the following four words plus the parentheses must be deleted.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100244.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100245.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100246.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100246.txt','Madam President, I would just like to say that here too the German version is incorrect. We are sticking with the English version, in which the words “his or her” have been added.','Madam President, I would just like to say that here too the German version is incorrect. We are sticking with the English version, in which the words “his or her” have been added.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100247.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100248.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100248.txt','Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we Greens, but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us Greens on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.','Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we Greens, but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us Greens on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100249.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100249.txt','Madam President, if the House permits, I should like to give an oral explanation of my Amendment No 51. Some linguistic confusion has arisen, and what I sought to achieve is not reflected at all in this wording. Instead of what is suggested by the words of producers and artists, especially from the non profit-making sector, my primary intention was that we should include in this circle representatives of content providers. Yesterday, before and after the debate, I discussed the matter with some individual Members of the House. Several Members consider that these representatives of the content providers are subsumed under other categories of representatives. This shows that the wording is not clear and unequivocal. The programme is called eContent . We should therefore include content providers in it. This ought not to pose a great problem, in my view. I should appreciate your support for this amendment.','Madam President, if the House permits, I should like to give an oral explanation of my Amendment No 51. Some linguistic confusion has arisen, and what I sought to achieve is not reflected at all in this wording. Instead of what is suggested by the words \"of producers and artists, especially from the non profit-making sector\", my primary intention was that we should include in this circle representatives of content providers. Yesterday, before and after the debate, I discussed the matter with some individual Members of the House. Several Members consider that these representatives of the content providers are subsumed under other categories of representatives. This shows that the wording is not clear and unequivocal. The programme is called eContent . We should therefore include content providers in it. This ought not to pose a great problem, in my view. I should appreciate your support for this amendment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10025.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100250.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100250.txt','Madam President, I would like to make a similar announcement to this House. I think that many in this Chamber are affected, as authors. But as far as Amendment No 33 is concerned, I am particularly biased. I will definitely not be voting on Amendment No 33.','Madam President, I would like to make a similar announcement to this House. I think that many in this Chamber are affected, as authors. But as far as Amendment No 33 is concerned, I am particularly biased. I will definitely not be voting on Amendment No 33.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100251.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100251.txt','Mr President, a very good evening and welcome to Europe\'s first culture channel. But joking apart, what can I say to you in just a minute? Perhaps I should try to take the wind out of the sceptics\' sails. This is not about intervention, it is not about interfering in national cultural policy, no new wave of harmonisation is being started on the contrary, it is about bringing sermonising politicians down to earth and saying, could you please stop using subsidiarity as a veto. It is about saying, if you really mean that culture is one of the most important models for the peaceful integration of Europe, then you must put your money where you mouth is. We try to join forces in so many areas why should culture go it alone? Joint investment by Europe in culture – I like that expression better than subsidy, it is not just a question of financial support – is long overdue. May I run over time slightly in order to pay my respects and offer my thanks to all the members who have patiently fought to make headway here over the years, long before my arrival here. I should like to thank them for every millimetre of ground won and I too shall fight for more, millimetre by millimetre.','Mr President, a very good evening and welcome to Europe\'s first culture channel. But joking apart, what can I say to you in just a minute? Perhaps I should try to take the wind out of the sceptics\' sails. This is not about intervention, it is not about interfering in national cultural policy, no new wave of harmonisation is being started; on the contrary, it is about bringing sermonising politicians down to earth and saying, could you please stop using subsidiarity as a veto. It is about saying, if you really mean that culture is one of the most important models for the peaceful integration of Europe, then you must put your money where you mouth is. We try to join forces in so many areas; why should culture go it alone? Joint investment by Europe in culture – I like that expression better than subsidy, it is not just a question of financial support – is long overdue. May I run over time slightly in order to pay my respects and offer my thanks to all the members who have patiently fought to make headway here over the years, long before my arrival here. I should like to thank them for every millimetre of ground won and I too shall fight for more, millimetre by millimetre.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100252.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100252.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’ they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’; they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness; we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100253.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100254.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100255.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100256.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100257.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100257.txt','Could Mr van Velzen perhaps comment on whether Amendment No 10 now says: “considers it important to deepen…” or “to clarify the following concepts” ?','Could Mr van Velzen perhaps comment on whether Amendment No 10 now says: “considers it important to deepen…” or “to clarify the following concepts” ?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100258.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100259.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10026.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','2016-08-15 15:23:43');
INSERT INTO `document` VALUES ('100260.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100260.txt','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100261.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100262.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100263.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100264.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100264.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur; well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again; perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100265.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100266.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100266.txt','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100267.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100267.txt','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100268.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100269.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10027.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10027.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100270.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100271.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100272.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100272.txt','Mr President, I too would like to say, in relation to Amendment No 53, that the English version is the valid text. ‘Parasitic copies’ is therefore the correct wording.','Mr President, I too would like to say, in relation to Amendment No 53, that the English version is the valid text. ‘Parasitic copies’ is therefore the correct wording.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100273.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100274.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100275.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100275.txt','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100276.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100277.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100277.txt','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy; even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms; having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried; the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100278.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100278.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or Lingua. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or \"Lingua\". Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100279.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100279.txt','Madam President, allow me, without mentioning this proposal – of which I am in favour – to make just one small remark: I am campaigning somewhat for the respect of the large groups. It is the responsibility of the first vice-chairman to represent a committee chairman, not of a member of his group. I would ask Mr Corbett to show the office of vice-chairman in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs this minimum respect in future. (Applause)','Madam President, allow me, without mentioning this proposal – of which I am in favour – to make just one small remark: I am campaigning somewhat for the respect of the large groups. It is the responsibility of the first vice-chairman to represent a committee chairman, not of a member of his group. I would ask Mr Corbett to show the office of vice-chairman in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs this minimum respect in future. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10028.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10028.txt','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused; as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100280.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100280.txt','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100281.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100282.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100283.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100283.txt','Mr President, I am speaking today on behalf of my colleague Mrs Echerer, who has worked hard to secure the acceptance and recognition of sign language. Today we have heard many minorities speaking up for themselves. It is unfortunate that we do not have today interpretation into sign language, as we did with the Lynn Report. I am grateful to the rapporteur and also to the Committee for finding room for sign language in this report and in this programme, which opens the door to its being recognised. Several Members have expressed the view in this debate that sign language should be promoted as a health resource. I think this would profoundly violate the rights of the deaf minority. Sign language is not a crutch or a wheelchair. Not only is it a language used by 15 000 people, but we should also bear in mind that it is the only language in which these 15 000 people can carry on a conversation. For recognising them as a linguistic minority and acknowledging that their language also contributes to the diversity and richness of European languages, I am grateful to all who have had a hand in this report.','Mr President, I am speaking today on behalf of my colleague Mrs Echerer, who has worked hard to secure the acceptance and recognition of sign language. Today we have heard many minorities speaking up for themselves. It is unfortunate that we do not have today interpretation into sign language, as we did with the Lynn Report. I am grateful to the rapporteur and also to the Committee for finding room for sign language in this report and in this programme, which opens the door to its being recognised. Several Members have expressed the view in this debate that sign language should be promoted as a health resource. I think this would profoundly violate the rights of the deaf minority. Sign language is not a crutch or a wheelchair. Not only is it a language used by 15 000 people, but we should also bear in mind that it is the only language in which these 15 000 people can carry on a conversation. For recognising them as a linguistic minority and acknowledging that their language also contributes to the diversity and richness of European languages, I am grateful to all who have had a hand in this report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100284.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100285.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100286.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100286.txt','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100287.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100287.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100288.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100288.txt','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100289.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10029.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10029.txt','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100290.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100290.txt','','','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10040.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10040.txt','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10041.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100410.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100410.txt','Mr President, please allow me to add something to what Mrs Gebhardt has said. The things she has described have made a deep impression on me, but, Mrs Gebhardt, there was just one thing missing. The reason why these violations of human rights outrage us is that a European woman is involved. We should, though, be aware that Muslim women – and not only in Dubai – are exposed to the same violations of human rights on a daily basis.','Mr President, please allow me to add something to what Mrs Gebhardt has said. The things she has described have made a deep impression on me, but, Mrs Gebhardt, there was just one thing missing. The reason why these violations of human rights outrage us is that a European woman is involved. We should, though, be aware that Muslim women – and not only in Dubai – are exposed to the same violations of human rights on a daily basis.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004100.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004101.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004102.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004102.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004103.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004103.txt','Mr President , I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?','Mr President , I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004104.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004104.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there are some things that are not quite as we would wish them to be in European aviation. Last year, in particular, showed us repeatedly that it is high time to find more common European solutions to ensure that flying in European airspace follows orderly lines again, not to speak of the great dream of limitless freedom above the clouds conjured up by Reinhard Mey. But first and foremost, flying must be safe. We all want flying to remain safe, to see further improvements here in the forefront the rapporteur, Mr Simpson, to whom we owe thanks for an excellent report. There are, however, different views on how to achieve greater safety. I and luckily I am not alone in my view would hope that we leave the practical task of regulating the safety provisions, especially in regard to cabin crew and the accompanying provisions on crew training, to the European Aviation Safety Authority. Surely it should be enough for the European legislator to set out the objectives, rather than getting bogged down in too much detail. Unfortunately, this position did not gain consistent majority support in committee. As a result the text we will be voting on tomorrow includes some rather too detailed provisions, for instance on the kind of training course required and so forth. Perhaps less would be more in this case. Be that as it may, Europe still has a great deal to do on the question of aviation. As we saw in Nice on a very general basis, here too on a more specific basis we could plead for fewer national solutions and a more European approach. The Simpson report is a good step along this road. Let us take that step tomorrow and then pursue it further in a politically convincing manner.','Mr President, Commissioner, there are some things that are not quite as we would wish them to be in European aviation. Last year, in particular, showed us repeatedly that it is high time to find more common European solutions to ensure that flying in European airspace follows orderly lines again, not to speak of the great dream of limitless freedom above the clouds conjured up by Reinhard Mey. But first and foremost, flying must be safe. We all want flying to remain safe, to see further improvements here in the forefront the rapporteur, Mr Simpson, to whom we owe thanks for an excellent report. There are, however, different views on how to achieve greater safety. I and luckily I am not alone in my view would hope that we leave the practical task of regulating the safety provisions, especially in regard to cabin crew and the accompanying provisions on crew training, to the European Aviation Safety Authority. Surely it should be enough for the European legislator to set out the objectives, rather than getting bogged down in too much detail. Unfortunately, this position did not gain consistent majority support in committee. As a result the text we will be voting on tomorrow includes some rather too detailed provisions, for instance on the kind of training course required and so forth. Perhaps less would be more in this case. Be that as it may, Europe still has a great deal to do on the question of aviation. As we saw in Nice on a very general basis, here too on a more specific basis we could plead for fewer national solutions and a more European approach. The Simpson report is a good step along this road. Let us take that step tomorrow and then pursue it further in a politically convincing manner.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004105.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004106.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004106.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004107.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004108.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004109.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004109.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since I am relatively new to this House, though not new to politics, I would like to begin by saying something about myself. I once presented a youth petition for a referendum for service and justice and against privilege. I have helped to get rules on incompatibility tightened up, worked on new rules for the separation of politics and business, on measures and decrees for greater objectivity in the filling of public sector posts and the setting up of a group of experts for the shaping of a salary structure covering all public functions in my homeland, from the Federal President to the mayors of larger towns. The question of service and justice, mandate, profession and privilege runs through my entire political career and is always a question of the credibility of politics with the citizens. For this very reason I have argued for this question to be put to the Council, because since I have been in this House I have always had the feeling that there is no shortage of rumours, of mutual recriminations in Parliament and Council and between the groups, but no statute. The cause of our problem actually lies in the fact that, although we have all been elected to this House, we are not treated equally. Part of our problem is that we have 15 national electoral laws and no European electoral law, that we do not have one incompatibility rule but several different ones. That is one problem. We have already discussed this topic in 1998, 1999 and in April 2001. The President has told us that we have now almost reached our destination and we therefore wanted to know from the Council what matters are still outstanding and how we will reach our destination. Today again we get no answer from the Council – because that was no answer. I therefore ask myself how close we are to the destination if we cannot clearly say what the outstanding points are. At the same time, I witnessed a press conference this morning at which accusations were raised against everyone who mentions the Rothley report, which is a report from a committee and contains an opinion for the President. I consider such behaviour intolerable and the claims that were made to be untrue, and I ask myself: who is damaging the dignity of this House and the respect in which it is held? Is it those who make reference to a decision by a parliamentary committee or an opinion addressed to the presidency, or those who ignore that decision and want to start a parallel action? No national mandate can be compared with the mandate in the European Parliament. The time involved is greater, the distance is greater and we have less time at home than any of our counterparts. We have a decision from the Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which forms the basis for the President’s talks. We have a group of experts that has come to a conclusion so that no one can say we are arranging things to our own liking. We have the Rothley report and we have the legal situation where we adopt our statute and the Council approves it so it can enter into force. With this question we wanted greater transparency instead of rumours, greater clarity instead of recriminations. We wanted the Council’s answer, which sadly was no answer, to bring us a step closer to the decision we need. Nor do we want to be messed about by political opportunists or the Council’s indecision. I say to you, if we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. We must therefore resist opportunism and single-mindedly go the way we in this Parliament have decided on the basis of the law. We are of course always ready to split the report into a constitutional part and the remainder if they give us detailed reasons for doing so, but sadly this question went unanswered today as well. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since I am relatively new to this House, though not new to politics, I would like to begin by saying something about myself. I once presented a youth petition for a referendum for service and justice and against privilege. I have helped to get rules on incompatibility tightened up, worked on new rules for the separation of politics and business, on measures and decrees for greater objectivity in the filling of public sector posts and the setting up of a group of experts for the shaping of a salary structure covering all public functions in my homeland, from the Federal President to the mayors of larger towns. The question of service and justice, mandate, profession and privilege runs through my entire political career and is always a question of the credibility of politics with the citizens. For this very reason I have argued for this question to be put to the Council, because since I have been in this House I have always had the feeling that there is no shortage of rumours, of mutual recriminations in Parliament and Council and between the groups, but no statute. The cause of our problem actually lies in the fact that, although we have all been elected to this House, we are not treated equally. Part of our problem is that we have 15 national electoral laws and no European electoral law, that we do not have one incompatibility rule but several different ones. That is one problem. We have already discussed this topic in 1998, 1999 and in April 2001. The President has told us that we have now almost reached our destination and we therefore wanted to know from the Council what matters are still outstanding and how we will reach our destination. Today again we get no answer from the Council – because that was no answer. I therefore ask myself how close we are to the destination if we cannot clearly say what the outstanding points are. At the same time, I witnessed a press conference this morning at which accusations were raised against everyone who mentions the Rothley report, which is a report from a committee and contains an opinion for the President. I consider such behaviour intolerable and the claims that were made to be untrue, and I ask myself: who is damaging the dignity of this House and the respect in which it is held? Is it those who make reference to a decision by a parliamentary committee or an opinion addressed to the presidency, or those who ignore that decision and want to start a parallel action? No national mandate can be compared with the mandate in the European Parliament. The time involved is greater, the distance is greater and we have less time at home than any of our counterparts. We have a decision from the Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which forms the basis for the President’s talks. We have a group of experts that has come to a conclusion so that no one can say we are arranging things to our own liking. We have the Rothley report and we have the legal situation where we adopt our statute and the Council approves it so it can enter into force. With this question we wanted greater transparency instead of rumours, greater clarity instead of recriminations. We wanted the Council’s answer, which sadly was no answer, to bring us a step closer to the decision we need. Nor do we want to be messed about by political opportunists or the Council’s indecision. I say to you, if we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. We must therefore resist opportunism and single-mindedly go the way we in this Parliament have decided on the basis of the law. We are of course always ready to split the report into a constitutional part and the remainder if they give us detailed reasons for doing so, but sadly this question went unanswered today as well. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100411.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100411.txt','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004110.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004111.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004112.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004112.txt','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004113.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004113.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, there has hardly ever been such a topical report as this one. Just in time before the summer break, when everyone goes on holiday and more and more people also travel by plane, today Parliament is considering questions of air traffic. A tiresome subject, as we all know, and as every air traveller finds out. We all suffer from delays that often last hours. It has now become a daily scene at airports to see every passage-way overcrowded with bored, irritable or even aggressive passengers. It happens to us MEPs very frequently, as it does to much of the population during the holidays. Let me remind you of another aspect. When aircraft cannot land on time, that not only creates a great many personal difficulties for people on business trips who have to keep to their schedules but also produces extra costs and environmental pollution. So I welcome the fact that the Commission has submitted a report on these important subjects and that a High Level Group was set up to consider the problems of establishing a single European sky. I hope we will have the final results of its inquiries before us in good time in the autumn so that we can then really move on to taking concrete measures jointly with the Commission. The safety aspect comes top of the list for all passengers, but especially for frequent fliers. Safety standards must on no account be endangered. That is why we need better airspace control and protection. Eurocontrol must satisfy all these safety requirements, but that means we also have to create the necessary framework conditions.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, there has hardly ever been such a topical report as this one. Just in time before the summer break, when everyone goes on holiday and more and more people also travel by plane, today Parliament is considering questions of air traffic. A tiresome subject, as we all know, and as every air traveller finds out. We all suffer from delays that often last hours. It has now become a daily scene at airports to see every passage-way overcrowded with bored, irritable or even aggressive passengers. It happens to us MEPs very frequently, as it does to much of the population during the holidays. Let me remind you of another aspect. When aircraft cannot land on time, that not only creates a great many personal difficulties for people on business trips who have to keep to their schedules but also produces extra costs and environmental pollution. So I welcome the fact that the Commission has submitted a report on these important subjects and that a High Level Group was set up to consider the problems of establishing a single European sky. I hope we will have the final results of its inquiries before us in good time in the autumn so that we can then really move on to taking concrete measures jointly with the Commission. The safety aspect comes top of the list for all passengers, but especially for frequent fliers. Safety standards must on no account be endangered. That is why we need better airspace control and protection. Eurocontrol must satisfy all these safety requirements, but that means we also have to create the necessary framework conditions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004114.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004114.txt','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004115.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004116.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004117.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004117.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I found out today that France has banned rugby. That is fine by me. However, my question is this: do you think that boxing is really a sport which should be encouraged, and do you think that boxing is especially conducive to the morals and ethical values of young people?','Mr President, Commissioner, I found out today that France has banned rugby. That is fine by me. However, my question is this: do you think that boxing is really a sport which should be encouraged, and do you think that boxing is especially conducive to the morals and ethical values of young people?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004118.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004119.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004119.txt','Madam President, I propose to talk about a human rights violation. Many Europeans have been shocked and disgusted over the last few days to discover that in a country with which we are on very friendly terms, and to which we Europeans, especially those in my own country, owe a great debt of gratitude, that is, the United States of America, it is still legally possible to put children on trial and to take them away from their homes in handcuffs and shackles. And I am not talking about seventeen or eighteen-year-old youths, but about ten and eleven-year-old children. This is what has happened to a small slip of a boy with a very high-pitched, young child’s voice, who has been accused of sexually abusing his five-year-old sister. Madam President, I would therefore request that you write a letter to the governor of Colorado and ask him to give this small, mistreated child his fatherly help. Remind him too that the United States of America is the only country apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights. (Loud applause)','Madam President, I propose to talk about a human rights violation. Many Europeans have been shocked and disgusted over the last few days to discover that in a country with which we are on very friendly terms, and to which we Europeans, especially those in my own country, owe a great debt of gratitude, that is, the United States of America, it is still legally possible to put children on trial and to take them away from their homes in handcuffs and shackles. And I am not talking about seventeen or eighteen-year-old youths, but about ten and eleven-year-old children. This is what has happened to a small slip of a boy with a very high-pitched, young child’s voice, who has been accused of sexually abusing his five-year-old sister. Madam President, I would therefore request that you write a letter to the governor of Colorado and ask him to give this small, mistreated child his fatherly help. Remind him too that the United States of America is the only country apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights. (Loud applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100412.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004120.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004121.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004121.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me first congratulate you on your success in the Doha negotiations. I believe that the European delegation, to which I belonged, did very well to bring the negotiations to their conclusion. We stand a good chance of completing this round successfully. Our hosts in Doha also looked after us extremely well, something which I think was a fundamental requirement. What Mr Hans-Peter Martin is referring to, though, is the dialogue with the NGOs, a point I would like to probe further with reference to the Parliamentary Assembly. I do not believe it is feasible for this discussion to be carried on every couple of years and at the same location. Do you not think too that it would make more sense for parliamentarians from the various countries to be able to get together over a period of time and jointly to work through this subject, which is so crucial for the future, in a professional and detailed way?','Mr President, Commissioner, let me first congratulate you on your success in the Doha negotiations. I believe that the European delegation, to which I belonged, did very well to bring the negotiations to their conclusion. We stand a good chance of completing this round successfully. Our hosts in Doha also looked after us extremely well, something which I think was a fundamental requirement. What Mr Hans-Peter Martin is referring to, though, is the dialogue with the NGOs, a point I would like to probe further with reference to the Parliamentary Assembly. I do not believe it is feasible for this discussion to be carried on every couple of years and at the same location. Do you not think too that it would make more sense for parliamentarians from the various countries to be able to get together over a period of time and jointly to work through this subject, which is so crucial for the future, in a professional and detailed way?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004122.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004122.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo; they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004123.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004124.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004124.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as an Austrian I am extremely proud of the fact that the Council Presidency has focussed on development in the IT sector. I would be interested to know how the President-in-Office of the Council views the sale by auction of UMTS licences. The proceeds from this sector could create a huge amount of impetus and, above all, boost the Portuguese programme accordingly, if, for example, we were to make the proceeds from the licences that are sold by auction available for research and development, education, training and further education, or for infrastructure. What do you think to the idea of developing incentivisation programmes for the Member States, so as to enable the proceeds to actually be ploughed back into this sector?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as an Austrian I am extremely proud of the fact that the Council Presidency has focussed on development in the IT sector. I would be interested to know how the President-in-Office of the Council views the sale by auction of UMTS licences. The proceeds from this sector could create a huge amount of impetus and, above all, boost the Portuguese programme accordingly, if, for example, we were to make the proceeds from the licences that are sold by auction available for research and development, education, training and further education, or for infrastructure. What do you think to the idea of developing incentivisation programmes for the Member States, so as to enable the proceeds to actually be ploughed back into this sector?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004125.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004125.txt','Mr President, Europe is, after all, about unity in diversity, and so I would like to put the following question. How do you think the right of veto will develop? This is a major and very important area for the smaller States. Do you believe – and this also relates to the Convention – that the Council will in future consider the retention of the right of veto in certain areas indispensable?','Mr President, Europe is, after all, about unity in diversity, and so I would like to put the following question. How do you think the right of veto will develop? This is a major and very important area for the smaller States. Do you believe – and this also relates to the Convention – that the Council will in future consider the retention of the right of veto in certain areas indispensable?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004126.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004126.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004127.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004127.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and the entire committee for their work. The harmonisation and liberalisation of rail transport in the EU is an important step towards the aims of transferring more transport from road to rail and creating an integrated intermodal transport system. In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, it is essential that the trans-European network projects affecting the eastern part of Austria should actually be implemented on schedule. This infrastructure is needed to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the population of those areas and to ensure that they remain favourably disposed to enlargement. These are normal projects, relating to the rail and road networks and the Danube improvement scheme. One word on a topical issue: we all know that every Member State has its own particular set of circumstances and its own problems. May I therefore appeal again today to all those involved in the ecopoints negotiations to work out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and the entire committee for their work. The harmonisation and liberalisation of rail transport in the EU is an important step towards the aims of transferring more transport from road to rail and creating an integrated intermodal transport system. In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, it is essential that the trans-European network projects affecting the eastern part of Austria should actually be implemented on schedule. This infrastructure is needed to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the population of those areas and to ensure that they remain favourably disposed to enlargement. These are normal projects, relating to the rail and road networks and the Danube improvement scheme. One word on a topical issue: we all know that every Member State has its own particular set of circumstances and its own problems. May I therefore appeal again today to all those involved in the ecopoints negotiations to work out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004128.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004128.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004129.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004129.txt','Mr President, the UMTS licences were auctioned for very large sums. What effect will that have on digital television licences? I believe that new jobs have been created precisely by these initiatives, which also involve very substantial investments. What view do you take of the development of risk capital in this field?','Mr President, the UMTS licences were auctioned for very large sums. What effect will that have on digital television licences? I believe that new jobs have been created precisely by these initiatives, which also involve very substantial investments. What view do you take of the development of risk capital in this field?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100413.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004130.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004131.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004131.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker; it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004132.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004132.txt','Mr President, I would like to put another question to the Commission. Are there programmes designed to support women who do not want to have an abortion?','Mr President, I would like to put another question to the Commission. Are there programmes designed to support women who do not want to have an abortion?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004133.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004134.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004134.txt','Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.','Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them; for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004135.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004135.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia\'s application for membership represents a further step towards the stabilisation of this region. Just in the last few minutes we have received bad news from Serbia. A state of emergency was declared there a few minutes ago following the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. I would be interested to know if you intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, given that this development really does give us great cause for concern.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia\'s application for membership represents a further step towards the stabilisation of this region. Just in the last few minutes we have received bad news from Serbia. A state of emergency was declared there a few minutes ago following the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. I would be interested to know if you intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, given that this development really does give us great cause for concern.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004136.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004136.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause)  ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause)  ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria; this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains; they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done; only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004137.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004137.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004138.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004139.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004139.txt','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is; this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100414.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100414.txt','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss; it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004140.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004140.txt','Mr President, I have a question. In the Committee on Budgets, the European Parliament has earmarked 10% of resources for small and medium-sized undertakings. So what is the picture in this new area, especially as regards cooperation between the research institutes, the major research institutes, between groups of undertakings, small businesses and individuals? Does the programme go into that question specifically?','Mr President, I have a question. In the Committee on Budgets, the European Parliament has earmarked 10% of resources for small and medium-sized undertakings. So what is the picture in this new area, especially as regards cooperation between the research institutes, the major research institutes, between groups of undertakings, small businesses and individuals? Does the programme go into that question specifically?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004141.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004141.txt','Mr President, I am interested first and foremost in how relations with Parliament actually stand? Do you envisage the possibility of allowing Parliament to inspect all Coreper and Council documents on the Intranet?','Mr President, I am interested first and foremost in how relations with Parliament actually stand? Do you envisage the possibility of allowing Parliament to inspect all Coreper and Council documents on the Intranet?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004142.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004142.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004143.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004143.txt','Madam President, in that case may I again ask the House to vote to refer the report back to committee.','Madam President, in that case may I again ask the House to vote to refer the report back to committee.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004144.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004145.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004146.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004147.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004147.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004148.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004148.txt','Mr President, I wanted to thank the Commission and the Council for making it possible for this document to be adopted today, within four months of its submission, and at first reading. I would also like to extend warm greetings to the delegations from the Austrian National Council and Federal Council, who are in the visitors\' gallery.','Mr President, I wanted to thank the Commission and the Council for making it possible for this document to be adopted today, within four months of its submission, and at first reading. I would also like to extend warm greetings to the delegations from the Austrian National Council and Federal Council, who are in the visitors\' gallery.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004149.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004149.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100415.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100415.txt','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes; they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004150.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004150.txt','Mr President, I actually wanted just to say on the record that there are an increasing number of cases here in Brussels of bagsnatchers smashing in the side windows of cars and women drivers getting injured in the process. I would like to ask that this be noted and consideration given to the possibility of doing something about this.','Mr President, I actually wanted just to say on the record that there are an increasing number of cases here in Brussels of bagsnatchers smashing in the side windows of cars and women drivers getting injured in the process. I would like to ask that this be noted and consideration given to the possibility of doing something about this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004151.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004151.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004152.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004152.txt','Mr President, the only thing I wanted to say in response to that is that the Conference of Presidents, which met this morning, is already discussing this topic and that there is to be an official statement by Parliament. We have to put a stop to the way in which rumours are constantly undermining the hard work done in this House. Let us have the names out in the open. If we have the names, we must also take action against the persons concerned. (Applause)','Mr President, the only thing I wanted to say in response to that is that the Conference of Presidents, which met this morning, is already discussing this topic and that there is to be an official statement by Parliament. We have to put a stop to the way in which rumours are constantly undermining the hard work done in this House. Let us have the names out in the open. If we have the names, we must also take action against the persons concerned. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004153.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004153.txt','Mr President, we all know that there is an atmosphere of crisis on the Brenner, and I think that it is imperative to discuss plans for extending it and to look at pricing again, because we simply have to get a hold on the situation. My question is this: do you have any actual plans – we have already had the Green Paper – to put efficient transport pricing, particularly on the Brenner model, into practice?','Mr President, we all know that there is an atmosphere of crisis on the Brenner, and I think that it is imperative to discuss plans for extending it and to look at pricing again, because we simply have to get a hold on the situation. My question is this: do you have any actual plans – we have already had the Green Paper – to put efficient transport pricing, particularly on the Brenner model, into practice?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004154.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004154.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004155.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004155.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004156.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004156.txt','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004157.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004158.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004158.txt','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004159.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100416.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004160.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004160.txt','Mr President, I have two questions. The first is about securing our external borders. I very much welcome the programme and proposals with regard to enlargement, and particularly the fact that you want to have uniform responsibilities. The question is this: when do you think the new Schengen manual will be available? We will have common training programmes. When do you think this common training system will be operational? What I would also like to request is that we should consider the compatibility of the technology being used and that we should also get Europol to carry out the proposed risk assessment as soon as possible. When do you think the system will be operating? My second question is about migration. Our objective – and on this we agree – must be to create viable legal immigration mechanisms and prevent illegal immigration. However, the problem that arises here relates in particular to the area of asylum, where, although the Commission has made proposals, final decisions remain to be made in all areas. But we need decisions to be made quickly so that genuine refugees – who make up about 10% of applicants – can be helped swiftly and so that repatriation can be arranged for the remaining 90% that have to be rejected. Commissioner Vitorino, how do you intend to ensure that a system of this kind can finally be made operational and that we can secure Council approval?','Mr President, I have two questions. The first is about securing our external borders. I very much welcome the programme and proposals with regard to enlargement, and particularly the fact that you want to have uniform responsibilities. The question is this: when do you think the new Schengen manual will be available? We will have common training programmes. When do you think this common training system will be operational? What I would also like to request is that we should consider the compatibility of the technology being used and that we should also get Europol to carry out the proposed risk assessment as soon as possible. When do you think the system will be operating? My second question is about migration. Our objective – and on this we agree – must be to create viable legal immigration mechanisms and prevent illegal immigration. However, the problem that arises here relates in particular to the area of asylum, where, although the Commission has made proposals, final decisions remain to be made in all areas. But we need decisions to be made quickly so that genuine refugees – who make up about 10% of applicants – can be helped swiftly and so that repatriation can be arranged for the remaining 90% that have to be rejected. Commissioner Vitorino, how do you intend to ensure that a system of this kind can finally be made operational and that we can secure Council approval?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004161.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004162.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004162.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you gave the issue of public health a special mention. I would be interested to know how you see the division of responsibilities between the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. What are your priorities here?','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you gave the issue of public health a special mention. I would be interested to know how you see the division of responsibilities between the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. What are your priorities here?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004163.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004164.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004165.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004165.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004166.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004167.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004167.txt','Mr President, I would like the words \'and sustainable combustion\' added.','Mr President, I would like the words \'and sustainable combustion\' added.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004168.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004169.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100417.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100417.txt','It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?','It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement; rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004170.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004170.txt','Mr President, I would like it noted as a matter of urgency that the case of Dr. Ganzert, an attorney from Wels, has been dismissed. He is at present being held without good cause by the authorities in Nicaragua and has for three weeks been endeavouring to get permission to leave the country. I wish, though, to thank you, Madam President, for writing to the authorities in Nicaragua and asking for him to be given an exit visa.','Mr President, I would like it noted as a matter of urgency that the case of Dr. Ganzert, an attorney from Wels, has been dismissed. He is at present being held without good cause by the authorities in Nicaragua and has for three weeks been endeavouring to get permission to leave the country. I wish, though, to thank you, Madam President, for writing to the authorities in Nicaragua and asking for him to be given an exit visa.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004171.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004172.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004172.txt','Madam President, we asked for a split vote here, on the one hand, with regard to the amendment on raising the age limit from 14 to 18 and for the rest with regard to the expression “national of a third country. I would ask that there be a separate vote here.','Madam President, we asked for a split vote here, on the one hand, with regard to the amendment on raising the age limit from 14 to 18 and for the rest with regard to the expression “national of a third country\". I would ask that there be a separate vote here.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004173.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004173.txt','Madam President, we discussed Mr Schulz’s proposal this morning and voted on it. For good reasons there was a clear majority in favour of taking the vote today. Otherwise we would have not had Eurodac by the beginning of next year but the next debates would have been held sometime during next year and Eurodac would maybe have come a year later. That would be irresponsible and there was therefore a clear decision by the Parliament to take the vote today. (Applause)','Madam President, we discussed Mr Schulz’s proposal this morning and voted on it. For good reasons there was a clear majority in favour of taking the vote today. Otherwise we would have not had Eurodac by the beginning of next year but the next debates would have been held sometime during next year and Eurodac would maybe have come a year later. That would be irresponsible and there was therefore a clear decision by the Parliament to take the vote today. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004174.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004175.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004176.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004177.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004177.txt','Mr President, esteemed gentlemen from Portugal, especially the Council representatives, you face great expectations on our part. I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment. I refer to Eurodac. You will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system, as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications, in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and, above all, in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure. We voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument, together with an implementation committee, which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be. We were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality. Even in Tampere, we were of the opinion that Eurodac was becoming a reality. However, the Council then took another direction at the very next summit in December and took a huge step backwards by deciding what we had absolutely rejected, i.e. that the Council should continue to be responsible for implementation, that the regulatory committee would be attached to the Council and that, where possible, Gibraltar would still be used to exert pressure. This is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see. My urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures. If you tell us today how you wish to proceed, you will be doing us a great service. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed gentlemen from Portugal, especially the Council representatives, you face great expectations on our part. I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment. I refer to Eurodac. You will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system, as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications, in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and, above all, in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure. We voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument, together with an implementation committee, which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be. We were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality. Even in Tampere, we were of the opinion that Eurodac was becoming a reality. However, the Council then took another direction at the very next summit in December and took a huge step backwards by deciding what we had absolutely rejected, i.e. that the Council should continue to be responsible for implementation, that the regulatory committee would be attached to the Council and that, where possible, Gibraltar would still be used to exert pressure. This is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see. My urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures. If you tell us today how you wish to proceed, you will be doing us a great service. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004178.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004179.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004179.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100418.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100418.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we know that there are various weak points on the shared external border, for example with Slovakia, where there is still a border line running for some forty kilometres, which is difficult to police properly. Could you envisage a force of this kind being deployed on a short-term basis in especially vulnerable border areas where help and protection might be needed?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we know that there are various weak points on the shared external border, for example with Slovakia, where there is still a border line running for some forty kilometres, which is difficult to police properly. Could you envisage a force of this kind being deployed on a short-term basis in especially vulnerable border areas where help and protection might be needed?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004180.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004181.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004182.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004182.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004183.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004183.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004184.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004185.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004186.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004187.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004187.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004188.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004189.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100419.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100419.txt','One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?','One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004190.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004190.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004191.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004192.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004192.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it; that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague; and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism; that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol; and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations; and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004193.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004194.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004194.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, are there any statistics on violent crime and, above all, on compensation payments within the European Union and, particularly, developments in recent years?','Mr President, Commissioner, are there any statistics on violent crime and, above all, on compensation payments within the European Union and, particularly, developments in recent years?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004195.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004196.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004197.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004197.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines; it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here; I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business; there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004198.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004199.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10042.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100420.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100420.txt','Mr President, we are always so surprised when the balance of nature is upset. What I should like to ask is whether we could investigate why the balance has been upset under European research programmes?','Mr President, we are always so surprised when the balance of nature is upset. What I should like to ask is whether we could investigate why the balance has been upset under European research programmes?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004200.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004201.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004201.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5% in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5%; in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004202.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004203.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004204.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004204.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to tell you that a lady who works with me has been attacked and beaten up at the railway station, and that the security situation has not improved.','Mr President, I just wanted to tell you that a lady who works with me has been attacked and beaten up at the railway station, and that the security situation has not improved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004205.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004205.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004206.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004206.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, you started, Commissioner Solbes, by mentioning that you are working on getting the Treaty changed. I should like to ask you straight up: exactly what changes are you working on? How will the European Parliament and codecision and joint competence fit in with these changes? And for my second question. We all talk about growth and employment. We have the stability and growth pact. We have the internal market. We have the Lisbon process. What potential for coordination in these three agreements has still not been exhausted and how does the Treaty prevent these orders from being fulfilled?','Mr President, Commissioners, you started, Commissioner Solbes, by mentioning that you are working on getting the Treaty changed. I should like to ask you straight up: exactly what changes are you working on? How will the European Parliament and codecision and joint competence fit in with these changes? And for my second question. We all talk about growth and employment. We have the stability and growth pact. We have the internal market. We have the Lisbon process. What potential for coordination in these three agreements has still not been exhausted and how does the Treaty prevent these orders from being fulfilled?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004207.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004208.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004208.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to draw attention to the huge pile of documents we needed for voting this week. I would like to congratulate the honourable Members. We have all been very industrious. (Laughter, applause)','Mr President, I just wanted to draw attention to the huge pile of documents we needed for voting this week. I would like to congratulate the honourable Members. We have all been very industrious. (Laughter, applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004209.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004209.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a matter of importance to all of us that speedy and effective help should be provided in disaster situations. Might you not contemplate the compilation of a Green Paper, listing for the benefit of all our offices and of all the voluntary organisations, what the options are, or create a virtual platform where the relevant bodies could coordinate their efforts in an emergency?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a matter of importance to all of us that speedy and effective help should be provided in disaster situations. Might you not contemplate the compilation of a Green Paper, listing for the benefit of all our offices and of all the voluntary organisations, what the options are, or create a virtual platform where the relevant bodies could coordinate their efforts in an emergency?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100421.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100421.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004210.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004210.txt','Madam President, I should like to point out, with respect to yesterday\'s minutes, that Dr Ganzert, the lawyer detained in Nicaragua, has now been allowed to leave, and to thank you for everything you did to bring this about.','Madam President, I should like to point out, with respect to yesterday\'s minutes, that Dr Ganzert, the lawyer detained in Nicaragua, has now been allowed to leave, and to thank you for everything you did to bring this about.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004211.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004212.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004212.txt','We know that business relations can also be a basis for improvements in political relations, and so my question is this: are there any plans to enhance the overall framework for business relations between small- and medium-sized enterprises or family companies between Europe and South Africa, because that could form a basis on which to create, in the poorer regions, prosperity – which is ultimately also the basis for building peace?','We know that business relations can also be a basis for improvements in political relations, and so my question is this: are there any plans to enhance the overall framework for business relations between small- and medium-sized enterprises or family companies between Europe and South Africa, because that could form a basis on which to create, in the poorer regions, prosperity – which is ultimately also the basis for building peace?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004213.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004213.txt','Commissioner, I would like to ask a question on the economic situation. In Slovakia, the package of economy measures has entailed some problems and privations for the population. It is therefore important to stabilise the economic situation. We know in Europe small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the economy. What do you intend to do to expedite economic stability here and especially to establish contact between neighbouring States, located in direct proximity to the European Union? What programmes are envisaged here to get privatisation on the right road too? You know, there were considerable problems with the Meciar Government when privatisation went ahead. I believe that there is a great need for economic rehabilitation, and I believe it is extremely important for Slovakia. I would like to thank you expressly for the fact that you are going to propose that the appropriate negotiations begin in Helsinki. I believe this is a very important contribution that Europe can make.','Commissioner, I would like to ask a question on the economic situation. In Slovakia, the package of economy measures has entailed some problems and privations for the population. It is therefore important to stabilise the economic situation. We know in Europe small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the economy. What do you intend to do to expedite economic stability here and especially to establish contact between neighbouring States, located in direct proximity to the European Union? What programmes are envisaged here to get privatisation on the right road too? You know, there were considerable problems with the Meciar Government when privatisation went ahead. I believe that there is a great need for economic rehabilitation, and I believe it is extremely important for Slovakia. I would like to thank you expressly for the fact that you are going to propose that the appropriate negotiations begin in Helsinki. I believe this is a very important contribution that Europe can make.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004214.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004215.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004215.txt','Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner\'s heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)','Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner\'s heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004216.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004217.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004217.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I want to firmly reject Mr Sylla’s comment that we have a politically-led judiciary in our country, in the Republic of Austria. (Applause)  Secondly I want to note that there are many urgent resolutions that deserve to be discussed in this House. The urgency on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna, tabled by Dr Swoboda, does not deserve any urgent discussion. It was prompted by a purely personal matter concerning Professor Pelinka. He resigned from the Centre’s Management Board voluntarily. The real reason was that he refused to do something which is a matter of course, which is the duty of every Austrian citizen, namely to render account of his activity if he is being paid for it by the Austrian Government. Let someone tell me what that has to do with the European Parliament. So it is easy to understand why we will not endorse recital A of this motion for a resolution and cannot share the concern about this matter. It should also be noted that the Monitoring Centre on racism is based in Vienna, not least thanks to the commitment of the present Chancellor and then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel, and that we are proud to give a home in Vienna to this kind of institution that keeps a watchful eye on xenophobia and racism in all the European countries. For the Centre’s report indicates that no one country is immune from such tendencies. For the rest, Austria has very strict regulations against neo-Nazism and its reactivation. Perhaps it needs pointing out that one sad case, the Omufuma case, was a case that a Socialist minister of the interior had to answer for. Clearly Dr Swoboda was also aware of the embarrassing nature of his first motion, otherwise the basically reasonable and considerably weaker motion for a resolution we can all support would not have come into being. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I want to firmly reject Mr Sylla’s comment that we have a politically-led judiciary in our country, in the Republic of Austria. (Applause)  Secondly I want to note that there are many urgent resolutions that deserve to be discussed in this House. The urgency on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna, tabled by Dr Swoboda, does not deserve any urgent discussion. It was prompted by a purely personal matter concerning Professor Pelinka. He resigned from the Centre’s Management Board voluntarily. The real reason was that he refused to do something which is a matter of course, which is the duty of every Austrian citizen, namely to render account of his activity if he is being paid for it by the Austrian Government. Let someone tell me what that has to do with the European Parliament. So it is easy to understand why we will not endorse recital A of this motion for a resolution and cannot share the concern about this matter. It should also be noted that the Monitoring Centre on racism is based in Vienna, not least thanks to the commitment of the present Chancellor and then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel, and that we are proud to give a home in Vienna to this kind of institution that keeps a watchful eye on xenophobia and racism in all the European countries. For the Centre’s report indicates that no one country is immune from such tendencies. For the rest, Austria has very strict regulations against neo-Nazism and its reactivation. Perhaps it needs pointing out that one sad case, the Omufuma case, was a case that a Socialist minister of the interior had to answer for. Clearly Dr Swoboda was also aware of the embarrassing nature of his first motion, otherwise the basically reasonable and considerably weaker motion for a resolution we can all support would not have come into being. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004218.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004219.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004219.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100422.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004220.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004220.txt','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004221.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004221.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004222.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004222.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have a question about security in Brussels. We know that the official statistics that are collected on this issue often do not reflect reality because many members of the public are no longer willing to report crimes to the police. Are there any arrangements in place or any opportunities for us not to rely solely on police statistics but also to commission studies in order to obtain an accurate picture of the real crime situation and especially on how to combat crime effectively in future?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have a question about security in Brussels. We know that the official statistics that are collected on this issue often do not reflect reality because many members of the public are no longer willing to report crimes to the police. Are there any arrangements in place or any opportunities for us not to rely solely on police statistics but also to commission studies in order to obtain an accurate picture of the real crime situation and especially on how to combat crime effectively in future?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004223.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004223.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations; the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004224.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004225.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004226.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004227.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004228.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004229.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you are quite right to say that business people must sort this out among themselves, but we all know that, in order to do so, they need a marketplace, that is to say, an exchange where it is possible to trade in these rights, these CDM projects. Do you think it possible that the Commission might take the initiative in providing such an exchange with a base in Europe?','Mr President, Commissioner, you are quite right to say that business people must sort this out among themselves, but we all know that, in order to do so, they need a marketplace, that is to say, an exchange where it is possible to trade in these rights, these CDM projects. Do you think it possible that the Commission might take the initiative in providing such an exchange with a base in Europe?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100423.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004230.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004230.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004231.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004232.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004232.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, we know that the GATS negotiations are intended to bring a greater degree of prosperity to developing countries, with liberalisation bringing advantages for consumers and generally being aimed at the companies in question. That is why I am interested to know which service sectors are being given priority by the Commission in the negotiations.','Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, we know that the GATS negotiations are intended to bring a greater degree of prosperity to developing countries, with liberalisation bringing advantages for consumers and generally being aimed at the companies in question. That is why I am interested to know which service sectors are being given priority by the Commission in the negotiations.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004233.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004234.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004234.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle; I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004235.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004235.txt','Madam President, I gather from the display that the next report is the Bouwman report. Does that mean that there is not going to be a debate on the WTO?','Madam President, I gather from the display that the next report is the Bouwman report. Does that mean that there is not going to be a debate on the WTO?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004236.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004237.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004237.txt','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004238.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004238.txt','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004239.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004239.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the objective of the common position before us is to provide potential purchasers of new cars with information. They need to know what the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are. Great! Tables, advertising brochures, guidelines, tips, that is all marvellous and Parliament adopted 29 amendments, of which 14 have been included in the common position. I would like to take the liberty of praising the Austrian Presidency a little, because I think they were the ones who made this happen. I also totally agree with the rapporteur when he says we should not waffle on! We should accept the wonderful job done by the Council and make sure that it comes into force as quickly as possible. As someone has already said, there are few of us left, it is late, and we are tired, but perhaps we should nevertheless look at the facts of the case, which are that CO2 emissions from private cars are constantly rising, and will continue to do so. So we should not act as if we have saved the planet here today! We certainly have not. We missed the boat long ago – or rather we missed a lot of cars. We will not save the world with this directive. It is necessary, it is important, and I am delighted that we have it, and perhaps we will all have a bit less of a guilty conscience the next time we get into our cars, but we should not imagine that we can really save the world with such minimal measures, even if there are a great many of them. We need action of a quite different kind for that. I wonder if we will ever adopt a directive along those lines!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the objective of the common position before us is to provide potential purchasers of new cars with information. They need to know what the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are. Great! Tables, advertising brochures, guidelines, tips, that is all marvellous and Parliament adopted 29 amendments, of which 14 have been included in the common position. I would like to take the liberty of praising the Austrian Presidency a little, because I think they were the ones who made this happen. I also totally agree with the rapporteur when he says we should not waffle on! We should accept the wonderful job done by the Council and make sure that it comes into force as quickly as possible. As someone has already said, there are few of us left, it is late, and we are tired, but perhaps we should nevertheless look at the facts of the case, which are that CO2 emissions from private cars are constantly rising, and will continue to do so. So we should not act as if we have saved the planet here today! We certainly have not. We missed the boat long ago – or rather we missed a lot of cars. We will not save the world with this directive. It is necessary, it is important, and I am delighted that we have it, and perhaps we will all have a bit less of a guilty conscience the next time we get into our cars, but we should not imagine that we can really save the world with such minimal measures, even if there are a great many of them. We need action of a quite different kind for that. I wonder if we will ever adopt a directive along those lines!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100424.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100424.txt','Mr President, thank you very much Commissioner, you mentioned that we will also require new rules for enlargement, and probably more money too. I would like to ask a couple of questions on the subject of new rules and, as such, on the subject of new ideas. Would it really be feasible, indeed would it also be wise in the future, to largely target the support at one particular area, time and time again? Would it not make more sense to place more emphasis than we have done hitherto on particular project ideas, or else on particularly needy areas? This would also allow us to spend the money in a more targeted way.','Mr President, thank you very much Commissioner, you mentioned that we will also require new rules for enlargement, and probably more money too. I would like to ask a couple of questions on the subject of new rules and, as such, on the subject of new ideas. Would it really be feasible, indeed would it also be wise in the future, to largely target the support at one particular area, time and time again? Would it not make more sense to place more emphasis than we have done hitherto on particular project ideas, or else on particularly needy areas? This would also allow us to spend the money in a more targeted way.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004240.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004240.txt','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004241.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004241.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would ask Mrs Izquierdo Rojo to adhere to the formalities of this House. We have to understand that the President of the Council’s function is, of course, simply to perform the Council’s duties, and that he does not bear responsibility for the individual Member States. It is for that reason that I want to ask whether it is actually known whether it was possible to liberate from Iraqi prisons political detainees who would otherwise have faced the death penalty?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would ask Mrs Izquierdo Rojo to adhere to the formalities of this House. We have to understand that the President of the Council’s function is, of course, simply to perform the Council’s duties, and that he does not bear responsibility for the individual Member States. It is for that reason that I want to ask whether it is actually known whether it was possible to liberate from Iraqi prisons political detainees who would otherwise have faced the death penalty?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004242.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004242.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions; all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004243.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004244.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004244.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004245.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004245.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner you have done an excellent piece of work.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner; you have done an excellent piece of work.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004246.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004247.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004247.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004248.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004248.txt','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004249.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004249.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100425.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004250.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004250.txt','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous; quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004251.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004251.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004252.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004252.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to observe that the ventilation of this House – by which I mean the whole building – was extreme this week and a very large number of Members have gone down with colds. I would ask you to have the building\'s ventilation system checked. (Applause)','Mr President, I just wanted to observe that the ventilation of this House – by which I mean the whole building – was extreme this week and a very large number of Members have gone down with colds. I would ask you to have the building\'s ventilation system checked. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004253.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004254.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004254.txt','Mr President, with your permission I should like to ask the Commissioner a supplementary question. I fully agree with you that we must not let it reach such a point that the poor farmers and processors do not know what lies in store for them or what their prospects are for the future. That is why I should like to ask you this specific question, Commissioner: can you envisage – and I am referring here to Amendments Nos 27 and 28 and to my previous comments – that the Commission might, after all, consider rethinking its proposal on quotas and restructuring it?','Mr President, with your permission I should like to ask the Commissioner a supplementary question. I fully agree with you that we must not let it reach such a point that the poor farmers and processors do not know what lies in store for them or what their prospects are for the future. That is why I should like to ask you this specific question, Commissioner: can you envisage – and I am referring here to Amendments Nos 27 and 28 and to my previous comments – that the Commission might, after all, consider rethinking its proposal on quotas and restructuring it?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004255.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004255.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we are forever discussing transitional periods and the related problems. Can you imagine our introducing the notion of pre-accession transition periods, starting to iron out the problems now by means of bilateral agreements between countries and developing an incentive system to that end? In other words, for the key areas, which we all know and which are constantly being cited, we should devise a system of incentives that would enable us to solve these problems in advance, before these countries accede to the Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, we are forever discussing transitional periods and the related problems. Can you imagine our introducing the notion of pre-accession transition periods, starting to iron out the problems now by means of bilateral agreements between countries and developing an incentive system to that end? In other words, for the key areas, which we all know and which are constantly being cited, we should devise a system of incentives that would enable us to solve these problems in advance, before these countries accede to the Union.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004256.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004257.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004257.txt','Madam President, I would like to ask that the results of the votes be displayed on the indicator board for at least ten seconds so that in future they can be noted down. We now have a new voting device and perhaps this can be programmed to display the results for at least ten seconds.','Madam President, I would like to ask that the results of the votes be displayed on the indicator board for at least ten seconds so that in future they can be noted down. We now have a new voting device and perhaps this can be programmed to display the results for at least ten seconds.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004258.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004258.txt','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004259.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I rise to ask if the Council has already considered including the Galileo satellite navigation project in the Odysseus programme and to what extent plans for this have progressed.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I rise to ask if the Council has already considered including the Galileo satellite navigation project in the Odysseus programme and to what extent plans for this have progressed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100426.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100426.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004260.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004261.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004261.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I would like to ask you this: What influence do airport duties have on these practices?','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I would like to ask you this: What influence do airport duties have on these practices?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004262.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004263.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004264.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004264.txt','Mr President, the future of this European Union of ours is dependent to a crucial degree on its acceptance by the public, and this is something we must always bear in mind when proposing regulatory schemes. That is why I advocated leaving the regulation of travel restrictions to the Member States. Appropriate measures relating to restrictions at weekends or on public holidays should really be taken by the Member States, as it is these that are best suited to responding to special circumstances. The Member States should generally be allowed to impose limitations from the outset for environmental and safety reasons, and it is imperative that geographical considerations be taken into account. What should, though, be seen in a positive light, is the reference to the special case represented by the transportation of easily perishable foodstuffs such as milk, fruit or vegetables.','Mr President, the future of this European Union of ours is dependent to a crucial degree on its acceptance by the public, and this is something we must always bear in mind when proposing regulatory schemes. That is why I advocated leaving the regulation of travel restrictions to the Member States. Appropriate measures relating to restrictions at weekends or on public holidays should really be taken by the Member States, as it is these that are best suited to responding to special circumstances. The Member States should generally be allowed to impose limitations from the outset for environmental and safety reasons, and it is imperative that geographical considerations be taken into account. What should, though, be seen in a positive light, is the reference to the special case represented by the transportation of easily perishable foodstuffs such as milk, fruit or vegetables.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004265.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004266.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004267.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004267.txt','Mr President, I wish, on the record, to thank France and Belgium for the guard on the buildings having now been markedly stepped up.','Mr President, I wish, on the record, to thank France and Belgium for the guard on the buildings having now been markedly stepped up.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004268.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004268.txt','Mr President, I should like to stress that the Commissioner was quite right in what she said. The Treaty can only be revised, and rightly so, if equivalent measures are introduced. Exactly what are they then?','Mr President, I should like to stress that the Commissioner was quite right in what she said. The Treaty can only be revised, and rightly so, if equivalent measures are introduced. Exactly what are they then?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004269.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004269.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Flemming, ladies and gentlemen, the senior citizens\' card really should also be a symbol of the tremendous purchasing power enjoyed by senior citizens in Europe. We are all aware of the current strikes about the pensions reform. I think that the best practice model would be appropriate here too. We should demonstrate which kind of best-practice reforms have achieved the target most effectively. I would therefore like to ask you this: does the Commission have any thoughts on how to promote pensioners\' power as consumers in future through best practice and benchmarks?','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Flemming, ladies and gentlemen, the senior citizens\' card really should also be a symbol of the tremendous purchasing power enjoyed by senior citizens in Europe. We are all aware of the current strikes about the pensions reform. I think that the best practice model would be appropriate here too. We should demonstrate which kind of best-practice reforms have achieved the target most effectively. I would therefore like to ask you this: does the Commission have any thoughts on how to promote pensioners\' power as consumers in future through best practice and benchmarks?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100427.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004270.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004270.txt','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004271.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004271.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004272.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004272.txt','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004273.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004274.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004275.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004275.txt','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004276.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004276.txt','Mr President, I have a request every member has a very precise timetable. We agree on a great number of deadlines in the citizens’ interest. Today, yet again, the sitting has been brought forward, this time to 8.30 a.m. I think it would be conducive to greater overall efficiency if we stuck to a basic programme and stopped changing arrangements at short notice. Thank you for your understanding.','Mr President, I have a request; every member has a very precise timetable. We agree on a great number of deadlines in the citizens’ interest. Today, yet again, the sitting has been brought forward, this time to 8.30 a.m. I think it would be conducive to greater overall efficiency if we stuck to a basic programme and stopped changing arrangements at short notice. Thank you for your understanding.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004277.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004278.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004279.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100428.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004280.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004281.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004282.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004282.txt','Mr President, in connection with the European Police College, I would point out that what is particularly important is to combat crime in the cities. As MEPs, we ourselves are very often concerned by crime. I hope that, in this area, the College will provide a starting point for the future.','Mr President, in connection with the European Police College, I would point out that what is particularly important is to combat crime in the cities. As MEPs, we ourselves are very often concerned by crime. I hope that, in this area, the College will provide a starting point for the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004283.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004283.txt','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004284.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004284.txt','Mr President. I should like to endorse what Mr Zimmerling has just said. In the uproar, I withheld my vote on proposed Amendment No 3 of the last resolution, whereas I actually wanted to vote against it. I would be obliged if you could take note of that.','Mr President. I should like to endorse what Mr Zimmerling has just said. In the uproar, I withheld my vote on proposed Amendment No 3 of the last resolution, whereas I actually wanted to vote against it. I would be obliged if you could take note of that.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004285.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004285.txt','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004286.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004287.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004288.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004289.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004289.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100429.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004290.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004291.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004292.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004293.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004293.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004294.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004295.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004295.txt','Mr President, on a point of order. Questions to the Council are no longer being answered in the time stipulated. Despite being warned on two occasions, the Council has not answered European Parliament questions. Would you please ensure that the Council fulfils its obligations in this area as well?','Mr President, on a point of order. Questions to the Council are no longer being answered in the time stipulated. Despite being warned on two occasions, the Council has not answered European Parliament questions. Would you please ensure that the Council fulfils its obligations in this area as well?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004296.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004297.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004297.txt','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004298.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004299.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10043.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100430.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004300.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004300.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004301.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004301.txt','Madam President, I saw a few boats landing at Parliament this week and notified the security service. Not only were there language difficulties the telephone line was so poor that it was almost impossible to communicate. I would be most obliged if the number on which the security service can be reached could also be clearly displayed in the House, so that if anyone wants to report an incident, they can do so quickly and efficiently.','Madam President, I saw a few boats landing at Parliament this week and notified the security service. Not only were there language difficulties; the telephone line was so poor that it was almost impossible to communicate. I would be most obliged if the number on which the security service can be reached could also be clearly displayed in the House, so that if anyone wants to report an incident, they can do so quickly and efficiently.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004302.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004303.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004303.txt','Mr President, I abstained from voting because I consider it necessary for the Commission to continue to cultivate intensive contacts with the government but also to endeavour to cooperate in a more focused way with the non-governmental organisations. I believe that media policy too is very important and that it is very important that we should also clarify to the population at the coalface what is actually happening. It should also be our policy to bring together both parties to the conflict. The Commission has already done a very great deal in this area and, in this connection, I wish it every success in the future.','Mr President, I abstained from voting because I consider it necessary for the Commission to continue to cultivate intensive contacts with the government but also to endeavour to cooperate in a more focused way with the non-governmental organisations. I believe that media policy too is very important and that it is very important that we should also clarify to the population at the coalface what is actually happening. It should also be our policy to bring together both parties to the conflict. The Commission has already done a very great deal in this area and, in this connection, I wish it every success in the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004304.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004304.txt','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004305.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004305.txt','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004306.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004306.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004307.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004308.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004309.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004309.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet; this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100431.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004310.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004310.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004311.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004311.txt','Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!','Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency; and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government; and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004312.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004312.txt','The Commission has, at the request of Parliament, submitted two framework directives. As these are within the competence of the European Institutions, we have voted to approve them, even though we do not agree with everything that they contain.','The Commission has, at the request of Parliament, submitted two framework directives. As these are within the competence of the European Institutions, we have voted to approve them, even though we do not agree with everything that they contain.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004313.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004314.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004315.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004316.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004316.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004317.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004317.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004318.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004318.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004319.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100432.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004320.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004320.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, it would interest me to know, whether you would deem it useful to comb systematically through all the items in the EU budget in order to establish which of them are conducive to sustainable development? Could we use a best-practice method to identify the budget lines with which we actually do anything substantive to promote sustainable development? Perhaps we could also carry out a benchmarking exercise so that the development of the individual budget lines could be observed. Do you believe that the best-practice method could optimise our performance?','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, it would interest me to know, whether you would deem it useful to comb systematically through all the items in the EU budget in order to establish which of them are conducive to sustainable development? Could we use a best-practice method to identify the budget lines with which we actually do anything substantive to promote sustainable development? Perhaps we could also carry out a benchmarking exercise so that the development of the individual budget lines could be observed. Do you believe that the best-practice method could optimise our performance?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004321.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004322.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004322.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU-Slovakia Joint Parliamentary Committee recently toured our border with Slovakia. Near Kosicec there is a forty-kilometre long border strip consisting of green fields. We were told that this is very difficult to monitor and that, at present, a very substantial influx of Afghan refugees can be observed there, perhaps not all of whom are entering Europe motivated by peaceful intentions. I would therefore like to ask if it is possible for the Commission to introduce satellite surveillance here, for example, or automated systems, making it possible on the one hand to gather statistical material and, on the other, to pick up more of these refugees and so be better protected in future? What programmes are in fact available to these states?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU-Slovakia Joint Parliamentary Committee recently toured our border with Slovakia. Near Kosicec there is a forty-kilometre long border strip consisting of green fields. We were told that this is very difficult to monitor and that, at present, a very substantial influx of Afghan refugees can be observed there, perhaps not all of whom are entering Europe motivated by peaceful intentions. I would therefore like to ask if it is possible for the Commission to introduce satellite surveillance here, for example, or automated systems, making it possible on the one hand to gather statistical material and, on the other, to pick up more of these refugees and so be better protected in future? What programmes are in fact available to these states?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004323.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004323.txt','Mr President, what interests me most is how the euro-debate will go on from here, after the referendum in Denmark, and what changes the Commission intends to make to the information strategy?','Mr President, what interests me most is how the euro-debate will go on from here, after the referendum in Denmark, and what changes the Commission intends to make to the information strategy?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004324.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004324.txt','Madam President, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Council – not for the first time, I might add – has contravened the Rules of Procedure. The point being that we MEPs have the opportunity, once a month, to submit a written question, for priority consideration which, according to the Rules of Procedure, must be responded to within three weeks. Now what we are finding is that increasingly often, the Council is failing to keep to this time scale. Here is the latest example: I submitted a question in October, to which I have not received an answer to this day, namely when is the Council going to get round to implementing the salary increase promised to the Europol staff? This is not an isolated case, rather such instances are mounting up. I would urge you to press the Council to observe the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Council – not for the first time, I might add – has contravened the Rules of Procedure. The point being that we MEPs have the opportunity, once a month, to submit a written question, for priority consideration which, according to the Rules of Procedure, must be responded to within three weeks. Now what we are finding is that increasingly often, the Council is failing to keep to this time scale. Here is the latest example: I submitted a question in October, to which I have not received an answer to this day, namely when is the Council going to get round to implementing the salary increase promised to the Europol staff? This is not an isolated case, rather such instances are mounting up. I would urge you to press the Council to observe the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004325.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004326.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004327.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004328.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','2016-08-15 15:23:43');
INSERT INTO `document` VALUES ('1004329.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100433.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100433.txt','Mr President, the case of the Rocard report shows quite clearly how important it is for Members to be in the House on Thursdays too because, as on Fridays, we have many important matters to vote on. So I want to thank all those who are present here today. (Applause)','Mr President, the case of the Rocard report shows quite clearly how important it is for Members to be in the House on Thursdays too because, as on Fridays, we have many important matters to vote on. So I want to thank all those who are present here today. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004330.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004331.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004331.txt','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004332.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004332.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black; the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004333.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004333.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004334.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004335.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004335.txt','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004336.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004336.txt','Mr President, looking through the Minutes I have just noticed that my name does not appear in yesterday\'s Minutes. It is very easy to confirm this, because I was present for the roll-call votes.','Mr President, looking through the Minutes I have just noticed that my name does not appear in yesterday\'s Minutes. It is very easy to confirm this, because I was present for the roll-call votes.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004337.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004337.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004338.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004338.txt','Madam President, I am sorry that the Socialists’ voting list was not received by the services in time. I should like to state unequivocally that I personally, as rapporteur, have no problem in accepting this split vote, even during today’s vote, and it would be good if we could vote today because, as you know, the Council of Agricultural Ministers is meeting today and tomorrow and it would be good if the agricultural ministers knew what we had decided here. Unfortunately, if we vote tomorrow, it will be too late.','Madam President, I am sorry that the Socialists’ voting list was not received by the services in time. I should like to state unequivocally that I personally, as rapporteur, have no problem in accepting this split vote, even during today’s vote, and it would be good if we could vote today because, as you know, the Council of Agricultural Ministers is meeting today and tomorrow and it would be good if the agricultural ministers knew what we had decided here. Unfortunately, if we vote tomorrow, it will be too late.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004339.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004339.txt','Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?','Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100434.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100434.txt','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004340.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004341.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004341.txt','The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people.','The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004342.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004342.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change; it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004343.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004344.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004345.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004345.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004346.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004347.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004348.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004349.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004349.txt','Madam President, I just wanted to explain that this directive on a uniform bus for Europe was rejected by all groups at first reading. Then there were 90 pages today there are 150. That is why the European People’s Party has brought in Amendment No 9. I support referring this draft directive back to committee because, after the standardisation of the European cucumber, we do not want the standardisation of the European bus as well. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, I just wanted to explain that this directive on a uniform bus for Europe was rejected by all groups at first reading. Then there were 90 pages; today there are 150. That is why the European People’s Party has brought in Amendment No 9. I support referring this draft directive back to committee because, after the standardisation of the European cucumber, we do not want the standardisation of the European bus as well. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. (Applause from the right)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100435.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004350.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004351.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004352.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004353.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004354.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004355.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004356.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004356.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg; instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004357.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004357.txt','Mr President, I note with some surprise that I am bringing up the rear, despite having been the first to request the floor in writing. Secondly, I should also like to note that, broadly speaking, my Group supports the Haarder report and expressly highlights the fact that there was excellent cooperation with the rapporteur. At last we have before us a report which duly deals with the subject, the stated period and enforceable rights. Hence our support in principle. We voted against it, however, because two points were accepted by the majority of the House I refer to points 53 and 54, which tackle the issue of the family and the excessive support or special support for all alternative types of partnership. We in the European People’s Party see the family as a value per se, as the cornerstone of society, if you like, as the heart of society, and cannot accept that alternative life styles should be specially fostered and set above the family, which we see as the nucleus of our society. However, with these points and the majority decision by Parliament, we now have a situation in points 53 and 54 in which alternative lifestyles enjoy special favour and are placed above the family, as a result of which we find it impossible to vote for the report as a whole. (Applause)','Mr President, I note with some surprise that I am bringing up the rear, despite having been the first to request the floor in writing. Secondly, I should also like to note that, broadly speaking, my Group supports the Haarder report and expressly highlights the fact that there was excellent cooperation with the rapporteur. At last we have before us a report which duly deals with the subject, the stated period and enforceable rights. Hence our support in principle. We voted against it, however, because two points were accepted by the majority of the House; I refer to points 53 and 54, which tackle the issue of the family and the excessive support or special support for all alternative types of partnership. We in the European People’s Party see the family as a value per se, as the cornerstone of society, if you like, as the heart of society, and cannot accept that alternative life styles should be specially fostered and set above the family, which we see as the nucleus of our society. However, with these points and the majority decision by Parliament, we now have a situation in points 53 and 54 in which alternative lifestyles enjoy special favour and are placed above the family, as a result of which we find it impossible to vote for the report as a whole. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004358.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004359.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004359.txt','My second question relates to employment policy for the year 2000, which you voted on here today. The same question comes up time and time again: to what extent is the budget of the European Union examined in order to ascertain which budget lines foster employment? Some expenditure certainly fosters employment by creating new jobs and new undertakings, some budget lines secure existing jobs and some budget lines destroy jobs. Has any provision been made here for a scientific study or are there any studies which illustrate which expenditure or income we can use to make a positive impact on European employment policy?','My second question relates to employment policy for the year 2000, which you voted on here today. The same question comes up time and time again: to what extent is the budget of the European Union examined in order to ascertain which budget lines foster employment? Some expenditure certainly fosters employment by creating new jobs and new undertakings, some budget lines secure existing jobs and some budget lines destroy jobs. Has any provision been made here for a scientific study or are there any studies which illustrate which expenditure or income we can use to make a positive impact on European employment policy?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100436.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100436.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15 we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15; we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004360.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004360.txt','Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.','Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004361.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004361.txt','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004362.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004363.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004364.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004365.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004365.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004366.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004366.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004367.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004367.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004368.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004368.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004369.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004369.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to say that it should be announced that we have got on to Question No 2, as otherwise the Members in the House will not be aware that we have already moved on.','Mr President, I just wanted to say that it should be announced that we have got on to Question No 2, as otherwise the Members in the House will not be aware that we have already moved on.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100437.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100437.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question of recruitment is important because it is a question of objectivity. Whether we like it or not, we need criteria for recruitment. We know that age, quotas for women and quotas for countries are often used as recruitment criteria. My question – and this qualification needs to be set out – is: are there any plans to obtain professional advice here in the future, perhaps to instruct recruitment consultants to deal with this question, so that the best possible staff can be recruited in the future?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question of recruitment is important because it is a question of objectivity. Whether we like it or not, we need criteria for recruitment. We know that age, quotas for women and quotas for countries are often used as recruitment criteria. My question – and this qualification needs to be set out – is: are there any plans to obtain professional advice here in the future, perhaps to instruct recruitment consultants to deal with this question, so that the best possible staff can be recruited in the future?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004370.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004371.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004371.txt','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004372.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004373.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004373.txt','Mr President, I would like to make a correction to my statement on the EC/Switzerland agreement, because since 1 May this year, Mr Jörg Haider has been neither a member of the government nor the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party. As such, the grounds for the sanctions imposed by the 14+1 on one Member State should be rescinded immediately.','Mr President, I would like to make a correction to my statement on the EC/Switzerland agreement, because since 1 May this year, Mr Jörg Haider has been neither a member of the government nor the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party. As such, the grounds for the sanctions imposed by the 14+1 on one Member State should be rescinded immediately.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004374.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004374.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping; politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point; it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004375.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004375.txt','I congratulate you, Commissioner, on always being allowed to make statements on such scintillating subjects, first Temelin and now Kozloduy. You must be a very happy man. May I ask how much a decommissioning of this sort costs? What happens to the contaminated materials? Who pays for it all? How long does such decommissioning take? What actually happens if there is some sort of mishap before 2006? Who pays then? Who bears the costs? Following on from your answer to Mr Rübig\'s question, do you not also believe that we are yet again seeing how urgently necessary it is that we should have common European standards rather than always arriving at decommissioning dates by a process of rough estimation? Blocks 3 and 4 in 2006 – that is what we have said now. Should we perhaps not make that 2004 or 2003? What happens then if something goes wrong in 2005?','I congratulate you, Commissioner, on always being allowed to make statements on such scintillating subjects, first Temelin and now Kozloduy. You must be a very happy man. May I ask how much a decommissioning of this sort costs? What happens to the contaminated materials? Who pays for it all? How long does such decommissioning take? What actually happens if there is some sort of mishap before 2006? Who pays then? Who bears the costs? Following on from your answer to Mr Rübig\'s question, do you not also believe that we are yet again seeing how urgently necessary it is that we should have common European standards rather than always arriving at decommissioning dates by a process of rough estimation? Blocks 3 and 4 in 2006 – that is what we have said now. Should we perhaps not make that 2004 or 2003? What happens then if something goes wrong in 2005?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004376.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004376.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know to which technical norms and standards the Commission actually refers when deciding which blocks are dangerous and have to be closed down.','Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know to which technical norms and standards the Commission actually refers when deciding which blocks are dangerous and have to be closed down.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004377.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004378.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004378.txt','–  Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause)  As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)','–  Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause)  As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004379.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004379.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are many reasons why, in principle, I welcome what the Commission has submitted: firstly, because the Commission is sending a signal to the Member States that they are not alone in the problems of migration, refugees and displaced persons secondly, because it at least regulates in part the distribution of the burden and, thirdly, because the Commission is proposing a differentiated package of responsibilities for two different groups, namely recognised refugees and displaced persons, i.e. persons temporarily seeking protection. I welcome the proposal because it clearly defines the target groups, because the acceptance conditions will be improved and the integration of refugees supported, and because the re-integration of temporary refugees will be promoted. However, I do not share the view that Mrs Frahm’s report can be accepted almost without criticism because I consider that measures which go beyond these defined responsibilities are inappropriate. Firstly, the money is not available and, secondly, there are other totally different groups which have a claim to it if you are talking here about groups which are particularly in need of protection, and we are unquestionably talking about persons within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. I also do not support your proposals for measures which are incompatible with the particular groups. When it comes to refugees, the measures should be different to those for displaced persons. You cannot, in the case of displaced persons whose main concern is to return to their homeland, require that the host country integrate them into the labour market. That contradicts the basic intention. However, we must seek to make an amendment when it comes to the allocation of funds, taking the number of refugees or displaced persons per capita of the population of a Member State as the basis. One final point which I would like to mention, and I do not understand why Mrs Frahm does not want this, is that we must also have the option to make money available for refugee reception centres. You reject this and I simply cannot see why, because this is the first point of contact where we can provide specific help, accelerate processes and promote refugee integration. However, in all the proposed measures, we must not fail to recognise that one objective has not been addressed here, namely taking into account the distribution of the refugee burden. Please do so in implementing the measures which are necessary and positive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are many reasons why, in principle, I welcome what the Commission has submitted: firstly, because the Commission is sending a signal to the Member States that they are not alone in the problems of migration, refugees and displaced persons; secondly, because it at least regulates in part the distribution of the burden; and, thirdly, because the Commission is proposing a differentiated package of responsibilities for two different groups, namely recognised refugees and displaced persons, i.e. persons temporarily seeking protection. I welcome the proposal because it clearly defines the target groups, because the acceptance conditions will be improved and the integration of refugees supported, and because the re-integration of temporary refugees will be promoted. However, I do not share the view that Mrs Frahm’s report can be accepted almost without criticism because I consider that measures which go beyond these defined responsibilities are inappropriate. Firstly, the money is not available and, secondly, there are other totally different groups which have a claim to it if you are talking here about groups which are particularly in need of protection, and we are unquestionably talking about persons within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. I also do not support your proposals for measures which are incompatible with the particular groups. When it comes to refugees, the measures should be different to those for displaced persons. You cannot, in the case of displaced persons whose main concern is to return to their homeland, require that the host country integrate them into the labour market. That contradicts the basic intention. However, we must seek to make an amendment when it comes to the allocation of funds, taking the number of refugees or displaced persons per capita of the population of a Member State as the basis. One final point which I would like to mention, and I do not understand why Mrs Frahm does not want this, is that we must also have the option to make money available for refugee reception centres. You reject this and I simply cannot see why, because this is the first point of contact where we can provide specific help, accelerate processes and promote refugee integration. However, in all the proposed measures, we must not fail to recognise that one objective has not been addressed here, namely taking into account the distribution of the refugee burden. Please do so in implementing the measures which are necessary and positive.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100438.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100438.txt','Madam President, I should like to make a request in connection with today’s vote which I started to make yesterday during the debate on the EQUAL report. I should like the vote on the Community EQUAL initiative to be postponed because we need a bit more time to negotiate an important point. I am optimistic and quite relaxed and confident about the vote we shall gain broad support for this opinion on EQUAL. We just need a bit more time to work out the details on the asylum question and I would therefore request that the vote be postponed from this morning.','Madam President, I should like to make a request in connection with today’s vote which I started to make yesterday during the debate on the EQUAL report. I should like the vote on the Community EQUAL initiative to be postponed because we need a bit more time to negotiate an important point. I am optimistic and quite relaxed and confident about the vote; we shall gain broad support for this opinion on EQUAL. We just need a bit more time to work out the details on the asylum question and I would therefore request that the vote be postponed from this morning.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004380.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004381.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004381.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004382.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004382.txt','Madam Commissioner, do you know whether any Member States are already giving serious consideration to the possibility of banning these brominated flame retardants at present, or, indeed, have already introduced such a ban?','Madam Commissioner, do you know whether any Member States are already giving serious consideration to the possibility of banning these brominated flame retardants at present, or, indeed, have already introduced such a ban?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004383.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004383.txt','Madam President, allow me briefly to correct what the President-in-Office of the Council said. Two heads of government, Mr President-in-Office, have already been reprimanded by their parliaments for the steps which they initiated against Austria. You therefore had no right to speak on behalf of their countries on the contrary, you obviously spoke as the head of a socialist party. At most, Mr President-in-Office, you can therefore only speak of twelve countries.','Madam President, allow me briefly to correct what the President-in-Office of the Council said. Two heads of government, Mr President-in-Office, have already been reprimanded by their parliaments for the steps which they initiated against Austria. You therefore had no right to speak on behalf of their countries; on the contrary, you obviously spoke as the head of a socialist party. At most, Mr President-in-Office, you can therefore only speak of twelve countries.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004384.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004384.txt','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004385.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004385.txt','), I would like explicitly to emphasise that ‘new’ atomic power stations also includes those that are to be ‘completed’ (such as Cernavoda in Romania). I would like to make it clear once again that a ‘new’ atomic power station is also to be understood as meaning the ‘completion’ of an existing one.','), I would like explicitly to emphasise that ‘new’ atomic power stations also includes those that are to be ‘completed’ (such as Cernavoda in Romania). I would like to make it clear once again that a ‘new’ atomic power station is also to be understood as meaning the ‘completion’ of an existing one.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004386.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004386.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004387.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004387.txt','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004388.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004389.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004389.txt','I support the entire telecommunications package because it has many strengths. Due to the constantly increasing demand for frequencies, whether it be from communication networks, radio, traffic, the police, the armed forces and science, a coordinated action in Europe in international competition is simply essential. Harmonisation at EU-level is generally helping to create a continental market that can totally hold its own against US competitors. Furthermore, I would like to mention the increased process of administrative simplification – eight acts were created out of a total of twenty – which is a thoroughly positive development. Rules of competition will be the most important instrument used to regulate the market for electronic communications. Until genuine competition can take place on the market, clearer criteria with regard to regulatory intervention and more precise limits and conditions for allocating obligations regarding the granting of access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks are necessary. Therefore, I expressly welcome Mr Brunetta’s report, which proposes reasonable obligations for the operator and stresses that prior regulations should be repealed as soon as the aims pursued have been achieved via market mechanisms. Such interventions will be necessary so long as the former monopoly holders, who still provide the most connections, exist. The meagre resources, controlled by one or a few of the operators, for example the local access network in telecommunications, are currently yet another obstruction to competition.','I support the entire telecommunications package because it has many strengths. Due to the constantly increasing demand for frequencies, whether it be from communication networks, radio, traffic, the police, the armed forces and science, a coordinated action in Europe in international competition is simply essential. Harmonisation at EU-level is generally helping to create a continental market that can totally hold its own against US competitors. Furthermore, I would like to mention the increased process of administrative simplification – eight acts were created out of a total of twenty – which is a thoroughly positive development. Rules of competition will be the most important instrument used to regulate the market for electronic communications. Until genuine competition can take place on the market, clearer criteria with regard to regulatory intervention and more precise limits and conditions for allocating obligations regarding the granting of access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks are necessary. Therefore, I expressly welcome Mr Brunetta’s report, which proposes reasonable obligations for the operator and stresses that prior regulations should be repealed as soon as the aims pursued have been achieved via market mechanisms. Such interventions will be necessary so long as the former monopoly holders, who still provide the most connections, exist. The meagre resources, controlled by one or a few of the operators, for example the local access network in telecommunications, are currently yet another obstruction to competition.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100439.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004390.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004390.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you specifically for mentioning the fact that you are also working on nuclear safety in the Ukraine. I would be interested to know whether it is actually intended to use the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency as a basis for guaranteeing safety there.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you specifically for mentioning the fact that you are also working on nuclear safety in the Ukraine. I would be interested to know whether it is actually intended to use the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency as a basis for guaranteeing safety there.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004391.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004391.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that in Macedonia\'s case it is particularly important to consider how the support that we provide can most effectively bring stability to this region. Small and medium-sized enterprises obviously play a pivotal role here. That is why I would be interested to know whether within this support programme that you mentioned, which will provide EUR 135 million for the period from 2000 to 2004, funds are also available to promote small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that in Macedonia\'s case it is particularly important to consider how the support that we provide can most effectively bring stability to this region. Small and medium-sized enterprises obviously play a pivotal role here. That is why I would be interested to know whether within this support programme that you mentioned, which will provide EUR 135 million for the period from 2000 to 2004, funds are also available to promote small and medium-sized enterprises.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004392.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004392.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004393.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004393.txt','Madam President, I just wanted to say to Mr Swoboda that he sometimes finds it difficult to decide whether he is speaking here as the Vice-Chairman of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, as a Viennese politician, or as a former Viennese politician. I sometimes get the impression that his statements have more to do with the fact that there are local elections in Vienna on 25 March.','Madam President, I just wanted to say to Mr Swoboda that he sometimes finds it difficult to decide whether he is speaking here as the Vice-Chairman of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, as a Viennese politician, or as a former Viennese politician. I sometimes get the impression that his statements have more to do with the fact that there are local elections in Vienna on 25 March.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004394.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004394.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you have spoken of the lengthy payment procedures which have an adverse effect on the image of the European Union in the various actions it takes. We are currently in the middle of a conciliation procedure for the late payment directive, in other words, this is not just a problem in external relations it is also a problem within Europe. I think that it would make sense if you as Commissioner supported the view that the late payment directive should also apply to the European institutions, because then payment could be made, if there was a legal basis, within a certain period of time, namely between 21 and 30 days or, we hope, even sooner. The idea is that the late payment directive could also be applied in these areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, you have spoken of the lengthy payment procedures which have an adverse effect on the image of the European Union in the various actions it takes. We are currently in the middle of a conciliation procedure for the late payment directive, in other words, this is not just a problem in external relations; it is also a problem within Europe. I think that it would make sense if you as Commissioner supported the view that the late payment directive should also apply to the European institutions, because then payment could be made, if there was a legal basis, within a certain period of time, namely between 21 and 30 days or, we hope, even sooner. The idea is that the late payment directive could also be applied in these areas.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004395.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004395.txt','Mr President, this Chamber was illegally stormed this afternoon during the debate on Turkey. This is not the first time we have been pestered in this way. This is also a question of the security of the European institutions. Does the Council have any plans to strengthen security in the European institutions?','Mr President, this Chamber was illegally stormed this afternoon during the debate on Turkey. This is not the first time we have been pestered in this way. This is also a question of the security of the European institutions. Does the Council have any plans to strengthen security in the European institutions?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004396.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004396.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004397.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004398.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004399.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10044.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100440.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100440.txt','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004400.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004400.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financial effects are, of course, considerable, and so I would be interested to know to what extent the Lisbon Process – showing as it does the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries – has been taken into account in the planning, whether that will be shown in specific Budget lines and what strategies you are envisaging for this.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financial effects are, of course, considerable, and so I would be interested to know to what extent the Lisbon Process – showing as it does the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries – has been taken into account in the planning, whether that will be shown in specific Budget lines and what strategies you are envisaging for this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004401.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004401.txt','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004402.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004403.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004403.txt','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004404.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004404.txt','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioners individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Mens second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioner\"s individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Men\"s second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004405.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004405.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004406.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004407.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004407.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004408.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004408.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004409.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004409.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100441.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100441.txt','Mr President, it would be interesting to know if the Commission is intending to have research carried out in this field, based on the best practice model. Are you intending to create incentives, with a view to ensuring that live transport is carried out in such a way that is actually tolerable for the animals concerned?','Mr President, it would be interesting to know if the Commission is intending to have research carried out in this field, based on the best practice model. Are you intending to create incentives, with a view to ensuring that live transport is carried out in such a way that is actually tolerable for the animals concerned?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004410.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004410.txt','Madam President, the verbatim report of proceedings for 16 March did not record my speech in full. I should like to correct it because the meaning has been distorted. It says: “I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction . ”  Now comes the mistake: “Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they “have distanced” themselves from the house of Habsburg” is what is recorded in the verbatim report of proceedings. It should read “ will never distance ” .','Madam President, the verbatim report of proceedings for 16 March did not record my speech in full. I should like to correct it because the meaning has been distorted. It says: “I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction . ”  Now comes the mistake: “Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they “have distanced” themselves from the house of Habsburg” is what is recorded in the verbatim report of proceedings. It should read “ will never distance ” .','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004411.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004412.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004413.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004413.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004414.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004414.txt','On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market.','On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004415.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004416.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004417.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004417.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff; the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004418.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004419.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004419.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100442.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004420.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004420.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004421.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004422.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004422.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004423.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004424.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004424.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004425.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004426.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004427.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004427.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to say that Mr Hans-Peter Martin has announced the withdrawal of the report on lobbying in industry because of his own personal interest. This is not something that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes it has been done contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and of the coordinator. I just wanted to have it recorded in the minutes of the House that he personally withdrew this report contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and contrary to the statement that he made.','Mr President, I just wanted to say that Mr Hans-Peter Martin has announced the withdrawal of the report on lobbying in industry because of his own personal interest. This is not something that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes; it has been done contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and of the coordinator. I just wanted to have it recorded in the minutes of the House that he personally withdrew this report contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and contrary to the statement that he made.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004428.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004428.txt','Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should like to express our wholehearted support for Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s motion. We all want to ensure that the people in our Member States are not exposed to excessive noise, but we also want this whole question to be regulated by law. To that end, I ask you to support the motion proposed by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten.','Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should like to express our wholehearted support for Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s motion. We all want to ensure that the people in our Member States are not exposed to excessive noise, but we also want this whole question to be regulated by law. To that end, I ask you to support the motion proposed by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004429.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100443.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004430.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004431.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004432.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004432.txt','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended; to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous; it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes; we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need; they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004433.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004434.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004434.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to ask the Minister if it has been thought to include the International Monetary Fund in these discussions about financial resources for East Timor, Turkey and Kosovo so that we do not have to bear the burden alone.','Mr President, I just wanted to ask the Minister if it has been thought to include the International Monetary Fund in these discussions about financial resources for East Timor, Turkey and Kosovo so that we do not have to bear the burden alone.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004435.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004435.txt','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004436.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004436.txt','Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?','Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004437.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004437.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing; on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another; it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer; our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004438.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004438.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, it is clear from your reply that you personally are holding the Council to ransom. It is also clear that your personal prejudices, which bear no relation to the situation in Austria and contradict the experts\' report, also have a great deal of influence on your function as President-in-Office, as can be seen from your itinerary in preparation for the French President\'s and the President-in-Office\'s tour des capitales . My question, therefore, is when do you intend to start performing all your duties in a way which reflects the spirit of Robert Schuman, the content of the experts\' report and the situation in Austria, and leaving your personal prejudices to one side? (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, it is clear from your reply that you personally are holding the Council to ransom. It is also clear that your personal prejudices, which bear no relation to the situation in Austria and contradict the experts\' report, also have a great deal of influence on your function as President-in-Office, as can be seen from your itinerary in preparation for the French President\'s and the President-in-Office\'s tour des capitales . My question, therefore, is when do you intend to start performing all your duties in a way which reflects the spirit of Robert Schuman, the content of the experts\' report and the situation in Austria, and leaving your personal prejudices to one side? (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004439.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004439.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control; I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100444.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004440.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004441.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004442.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, fighting terrorism is surely the most important objective in the world today. That is why I would be interested to know what initiatives the Commission plans to take on judicial matters in the light of the most recent developments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, fighting terrorism is surely the most important objective in the world today. That is why I would be interested to know what initiatives the Commission plans to take on judicial matters in the light of the most recent developments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004443.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004443.txt','Mr President, I am well aware that an Intergovernmental Conference is currently underway, which, as we know, consists of the Council. One of the questions on the agenda concerns Christian values and the issue of what message should be given in the preamble about the values underlying the European constitution. It would certainly be helpful for us to know what the Italian Presidency’s position is on this matter.','Mr President, I am well aware that an Intergovernmental Conference is currently underway, which, as we know, consists of the Council. One of the questions on the agenda concerns Christian values and the issue of what message should be given in the preamble about the values underlying the European constitution. It would certainly be helpful for us to know what the Italian Presidency’s position is on this matter.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004444.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004444.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004445.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this directive is, without doubt, the most important directive for the small and family-run businesses of Europe. A good day’s work deserves a good day’s pay. But some have had to wait for it longer than others. The stronger the partner, the more power he has to make a business wait. Here, for the first time, we have a regulation which ensures that the company’s liquidity is secured once the service has been provided, and within a foreseeable period of time. I am delighted that we are debating today in the small circle, because you can see that this directive is totally uncontested and that the European Parliament stands fully behind this directive. We know that some 450,000 jobs are lost every year as the result of late payments. When we talk about job security and job creation, then we have a very important and crucial directive here which helps us to secure 450,000 jobs a year in Europe. That deserves the headlines in the press but, as you know, the fight for jobs is already taken for granted. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is making such an important contribution to this. This initiative was intensively promoted to start with by Marianne Thyssen, Mr Folias and Mr Murphy and we are proud of such an excellent result in the House. Payment within 30 days, precautions to ensure that payments are actually made and that the company receives the money within 90 days. It is a sensational result. Congratulations! I am proud to be a member of this Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this directive is, without doubt, the most important directive for the small and family-run businesses of Europe. A good day’s work deserves a good day’s pay. But some have had to wait for it longer than others. The stronger the partner, the more power he has to make a business wait. Here, for the first time, we have a regulation which ensures that the company’s liquidity is secured once the service has been provided, and within a foreseeable period of time. I am delighted that we are debating today in the small circle, because you can see that this directive is totally uncontested and that the European Parliament stands fully behind this directive. We know that some 450,000 jobs are lost every year as the result of late payments. When we talk about job security and job creation, then we have a very important and crucial directive here which helps us to secure 450,000 jobs a year in Europe. That deserves the headlines in the press but, as you know, the fight for jobs is already taken for granted. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is making such an important contribution to this. This initiative was intensively promoted to start with by Marianne Thyssen, Mr Folias and Mr Murphy and we are proud of such an excellent result in the House. Payment within 30 days, precautions to ensure that payments are actually made and that the company receives the money within 90 days. It is a sensational result. Congratulations! I am proud to be a member of this Parliament.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004446.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004447.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004447.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004448.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004448.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004449.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100445.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004450.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect; we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004451.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004452.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004453.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004453.txt','Mr President, preventive health care is a major priority for everyone here in this House. We know that tobacco growers in the Member States have different priorities. I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following question, although I have always been, and still am, a non-smoker: does the Commission not think that if tobacco cultivation were to be completely discontinued within the European Union with immediate effect – as called for by a fair number of people – people would just carry on smoking regardless because tobacco products would be imported into the EU?','Mr President, preventive health care is a major priority for everyone here in this House. We know that tobacco growers in the Member States have different priorities. I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following question, although I have always been, and still am, a non-smoker: does the Commission not think that if tobacco cultivation were to be completely discontinued within the European Union with immediate effect – as called for by a fair number of people – people would just carry on smoking regardless because tobacco products would be imported into the EU?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004454.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004454.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004455.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004456.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004457.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004457.txt','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up; they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more; instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004458.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004458.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004459.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004459.txt','Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.','Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100446.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004460.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004460.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Echerer most sincerely for the good teamwork and the expertise that characterises it. This report is the latest reason why I will not be the only one to be sorry that you, Mrs Echerer, will not be standing for this Parliament again. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted my opinion unanimously and because of the good teamwork is also able to vote in favour of the Echerer report. In drafting this opinion for the forthcoming debate, including that with the Commission, I and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were concerned primarily with five particular points. Firstly, monopolies must always be exceptions to competition law and there must be sound reasons for them. We know that collecting societies are organised differently in the various Member States and in many they have a monopoly over particular categories of works. There is therefore a definite need to look more closely at, or review, the territorial monopoly structures, but not to reject them outright. Secondly, it is in our opinion important to have transparency in collecting societies, such as showing administrative and licence costs separately in the accounts. Something needs to be done here. Thirdly – and this is related to the second point – there is in many countries no supervision of collecting societies. I therefore expressly welcome paragraph 49 of the Echerer Report with its call for efficient independent control mechanisms in all Member States. Fourthly, my suggestion for a public register that could be accessed electronically, containing all right-holders represented by collecting societies, would make for greater clarity and improved transparency and would certainly also simplify cross-border activity and increase competition. Fifthly and finally, where the fragmentation of rights gives rise to high transaction costs, the introduction of a one-stop shop system could be a more efficient and cheaper way for users and exploiters of rights. I ask the Commission to take the contents of the Echerer report on board in its deliberations. Once again my sincere congratulations and I ask you to vote in favour of this report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Echerer most sincerely for the good teamwork and the expertise that characterises it. This report is the latest reason why I will not be the only one to be sorry that you, Mrs Echerer, will not be standing for this Parliament again. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted my opinion unanimously and because of the good teamwork is also able to vote in favour of the Echerer report. In drafting this opinion for the forthcoming debate, including that with the Commission, I and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were concerned primarily with five particular points. Firstly, monopolies must always be exceptions to competition law and there must be sound reasons for them. We know that collecting societies are organised differently in the various Member States and in many they have a monopoly over particular categories of works. There is therefore a definite need to look more closely at, or review, the territorial monopoly structures, but not to reject them outright. Secondly, it is in our opinion important to have transparency in collecting societies, such as showing administrative and licence costs separately in the accounts. Something needs to be done here. Thirdly – and this is related to the second point – there is in many countries no supervision of collecting societies. I therefore expressly welcome paragraph 49 of the Echerer Report with its call for efficient independent control mechanisms in all Member States. Fourthly, my suggestion for a public register that could be accessed electronically, containing all right-holders represented by collecting societies, would make for greater clarity and improved transparency and would certainly also simplify cross-border activity and increase competition. Fifthly and finally, where the fragmentation of rights gives rise to high transaction costs, the introduction of a one-stop shop system could be a more efficient and cheaper way for users and exploiters of rights. I ask the Commission to take the contents of the Echerer report on board in its deliberations. Once again my sincere congratulations and I ask you to vote in favour of this report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004461.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004462.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004462.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people. That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the ageing workforce. Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: \"But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people\". That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the \"ageing workforce\". Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years; today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004463.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004463.txt','– Mr President, our main goal should be to be successful for our small and medium-sized enterprises.','– Mr President, our main goal should be to be successful for our small and medium-sized enterprises.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004464.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, this very night we shall be discussing the proposal for a Council Decision on European digital content. One of our concerns in connection with this Decision is the need to determine how harmful content can best be kept off the Net in future. Are there plans to establish hotlines that would enable European citizens to report discoveries of harmful Internet content to a central agency? What about Internet groups, Internet police units and user groups which are formed with a view to uncovering harmful content on the Net? Are there also plans for technical mechanisms to filter harmful content out of the Internet in future?','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, this very night we shall be discussing the proposal for a Council Decision on European digital content. One of our concerns in connection with this Decision is the need to determine how harmful content can best be kept off the Net in future. Are there plans to establish hotlines that would enable European citizens to report discoveries of harmful Internet content to a central agency? What about Internet groups, Internet police units and user groups which are formed with a view to uncovering harmful content on the Net? Are there also plans for technical mechanisms to filter harmful content out of the Internet in future?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004465.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004466.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004466.txt','Madam President, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are also very keen to put a stop to fraud in all areas in the Union. (Applause)  We still do not have any right of codetermination in agriculture, which is why our only option is to refer this report back to committee and I urge the House to vote in favour of my motion.','Madam President, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are also very keen to put a stop to fraud in all areas in the Union. (Applause)  We still do not have any right of codetermination in agriculture, which is why our only option is to refer this report back to committee and I urge the House to vote in favour of my motion.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004467.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004467.txt','Madam President, I should like to ask the Commission if it has changed its opinion in the last twelve hours on the proposed amendments adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Agriculture.','Madam President, I should like to ask the Commission if it has changed its opinion in the last twelve hours on the proposed amendments adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Agriculture.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004468.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004468.txt','Madam President, exactly the same applies to this second decision as what you said for the first decision. Two proposed amendments in this second file are of fundamental importance to the Committee on Agriculture, namely Amendments Nos 28 and 29. I therefore again ask the Commission if it has perhaps revised its opinion here.','Madam President, exactly the same applies to this second decision as what you said for the first decision. Two proposed amendments in this second file are of fundamental importance to the Committee on Agriculture, namely Amendments Nos 28 and 29. I therefore again ask the Commission if it has perhaps revised its opinion here.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004469.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004469.txt','Madam President, in order to remove all doubt I would now like to make a clarification. On Sunday, 14 January Austria had its first suspected case of BSE. Allow me to inform the House that the institute in Tübingen informed us yesterday that the results were negative. I hope the same will apply to all future suspected cases in Austria. (Applause)','Madam President, in order to remove all doubt I would now like to make a clarification. On Sunday, 14 January Austria had its first suspected case of BSE. Allow me to inform the House that the institute in Tübingen informed us yesterday that the results were negative. I hope the same will apply to all future suspected cases in Austria. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100447.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100447.txt','Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)','Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004470.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004470.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004471.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004471.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004472.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004472.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004473.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004474.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004474.txt','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004475.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004475.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures contained in this directive range from drafting water management plans, comprehensive information and hearing rights, and close cooperation between the Member States, to combating water pollution caused by individual pollutants. And considering how long this Chamber has been trying to introduce a framework directive of this kind, I am pleased to be present here today, and I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on being in the happy position of presenting this report to us. However, it is also extremely important to me to point something out that many people actually take for granted. I would still like to highlight this point though: this directive does not constitute any kind of legal basis for diverting water from a Member State’s territory against its will. And by way of reaffirming this once again, I have introduced an amendment – gratifyingly with the support of a large number of Members – and I would be very pleased if Parliament would endorse my proposed amendment tomorrow. It is all about making it clear that water – and this is not the first time this has been mentioned today – is no ordinary commodity but a resource which belongs to the individual EU Member States and which must be protected and treated with the respect due to it. I am aware, and the previous speaker highlighted this, that there are States in the European Union that have problems with water. I believe that every one of us, in every country, could improve the way in which we manage our water and could make use of it in a cleaner way. This applies to every country. But only when each country has done its utmost to conserve its water resources, when literally everything has been done that could have been done in our own countries, only then, in my view, should it be necessary to start thinking in terms of harmonising water usage.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures contained in this directive range from drafting water management plans, comprehensive information and hearing rights, and close cooperation between the Member States, to combating water pollution caused by individual pollutants. And considering how long this Chamber has been trying to introduce a framework directive of this kind, I am pleased to be present here today, and I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on being in the happy position of presenting this report to us. However, it is also extremely important to me to point something out that many people actually take for granted. I would still like to highlight this point though: this directive does not constitute any kind of legal basis for diverting water from a Member State’s territory against its will. And by way of reaffirming this once again, I have introduced an amendment – gratifyingly with the support of a large number of Members – and I would be very pleased if Parliament would endorse my proposed amendment tomorrow. It is all about making it clear that water – and this is not the first time this has been mentioned today – is no ordinary commodity but a resource which belongs to the individual EU Member States and which must be protected and treated with the respect due to it. I am aware, and the previous speaker highlighted this, that there are States in the European Union that have problems with water. I believe that every one of us, in every country, could improve the way in which we manage our water and could make use of it in a cleaner way. This applies to every country. But only when each country has done its utmost to conserve its water resources, when literally everything has been done that could have been done in our own countries, only then, in my view, should it be necessary to start thinking in terms of harmonising water usage.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004476.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004476.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004477.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004477.txt','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles; we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004478.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004478.txt','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004479.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004479.txt','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100448.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004480.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004480.txt','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004481.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004482.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004483.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004483.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004484.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004484.txt','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004485.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004485.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004486.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004486.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004487.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004488.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004488.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best  practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?','Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best  practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004489.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100449.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004490.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004491.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004492.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004493.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004494.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004494.txt','Madam President, I am absolutely amazed that the Council does not wish to concern itself with the sanctions the Fourteen are taking against one Member State. The European Parliament is best placed to know that refusing to engage in dialogue is not the way to solve problems. ***','Madam President, I am absolutely amazed that the Council does not wish to concern itself with the sanctions the Fourteen are taking against one Member State. The European Parliament is best placed to know that refusing to engage in dialogue is not the way to solve problems. ***','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004495.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004495.txt','Mr President, institutional reform is on the agenda for Nice. Do you think that the Austrian model, i.e. bilateral majority resolutions, will be used in future as a way of passing resolutions which bypass the European institutions and of forming a new institution or a new group in order to circumvent unanimity in the Council? I have a supplementary question: how do you behave towards extreme left-wing parties and what is your opinion of them?','Mr President, institutional reform is on the agenda for Nice. Do you think that the Austrian model, i.e. bilateral majority resolutions, will be used in future as a way of passing resolutions which bypass the European institutions and of forming a new institution or a new group in order to circumvent unanimity in the Council? I have a supplementary question: how do you behave towards extreme left-wing parties and what is your opinion of them?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004496.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004497.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004498.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004498.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, in a few months’ time, hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers will again head for the Adriatic Coast to spend their summer holiday. We know from media reports that bombs and weapons were dumped just off the coast. Are you able to confirm that holidaymakers will be able to swim safely in the Adriatic this summer, and are there any measures in the pipeline for ascertaining what the dangers might be in this respect?','Mr President, Commissioner, in a few months’ time, hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers will again head for the Adriatic Coast to spend their summer holiday. We know from media reports that bombs and weapons were dumped just off the coast. Are you able to confirm that holidaymakers will be able to swim safely in the Adriatic this summer, and are there any measures in the pipeline for ascertaining what the dangers might be in this respect?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004499.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10045.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10045.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away; the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100450.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004500.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004500.txt','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004501.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004501.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union; both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it; we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004502.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004503.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004504.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004505.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004506.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004507.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004508.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004509.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100451.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004510.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004511.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004511.txt','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004512.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004513.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004514.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004514.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause)  What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo  instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause)  What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all; see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo ; instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004515.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004515.txt','Madam President, I am amazed that an honourable Member should describe euthanasia as a matter for national criminal jurisdiction covered by subsidiarity. We are, of course, all very proud and gratified that the death penalty does not exist in a single Member State of the European Union, because the sanctity of human life is something that should unite us all. (Applause)','Madam President, I am amazed that an honourable Member should describe euthanasia as a matter for national criminal jurisdiction covered by subsidiarity. We are, of course, all very proud and gratified that the death penalty does not exist in a single Member State of the European Union, because the sanctity of human life is something that should unite us all. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004516.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004517.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004517.txt','Mr President, I believe that Mr Schulz’s reference to the need for preliminary investigations, as well as his serious approach to the problems, indicate that a debate on them would be premature. At the moment, I do not see that the conditions he has enumerated for a serious debate have been fulfilled, and it is for that reason that we oppose the motion. The fact is that we should not have a debate if it is to be conducted only on the basis of an emotional response to day-to-day politics, in the absence of the necessary conditions for a debate, and without us being able to complete it with a resolution.','Mr President, I believe that Mr Schulz’s reference to the need for preliminary investigations, as well as his serious approach to the problems, indicate that a debate on them would be premature. At the moment, I do not see that the conditions he has enumerated for a serious debate have been fulfilled, and it is for that reason that we oppose the motion. The fact is that we should not have a debate if it is to be conducted only on the basis of an emotional response to day-to-day politics, in the absence of the necessary conditions for a debate, and without us being able to complete it with a resolution.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004518.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004519.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100452.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004520.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004520.txt','Madam President, last week, the MEP Karla Peijs was attacked in Brussels. I would urge you to approach the Belgian Government again and to see to it that security levels are stepped up in Brussels. (Applause)','Madam President, last week, the MEP Karla Peijs was attacked in Brussels. I would urge you to approach the Belgian Government again and to see to it that security levels are stepped up in Brussels. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004521.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004522.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004523.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004524.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004524.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004525.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004526.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004526.txt','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax; it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004527.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004527.txt','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004528.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004529.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004529.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100453.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004530.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004530.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged that railway companies are now competing with the cheap tickets offered by the airlines. How do you intend to proceed with regard to the state aid that is currently being paid to the railways? Will restrictions on the options apply here as well? In Austria, for example, 7% of the budget is spent on the railways. That amounts to around EUR 500 per citizen in subsidies to the railways, which are now competing directly with the privately-owned low-cost airlines. This means that there is unfair competition between the cheap tickets offered by the airlines and those offered by the railways. I would be very pleased if you took similar action against the railways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged that railway companies are now competing with the cheap tickets offered by the airlines. How do you intend to proceed with regard to the state aid that is currently being paid to the railways? Will restrictions on the options apply here as well? In Austria, for example, 7% of the budget is spent on the railways. That amounts to around EUR 500 per citizen in subsidies to the railways, which are now competing directly with the privately-owned low-cost airlines. This means that there is unfair competition between the cheap tickets offered by the airlines and those offered by the railways. I would be very pleased if you took similar action against the railways.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004531.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004531.txt','Mr President, during the discussions on the Karas Report I reprimanded Mr García-Margallo y Marfil for using the word ‘Vergreisung’ with reference to old people, with its suggestion that they are too old. There seems to have been an error in translation here. Our Spanish colleague used the word ‘Alterung’, which means ‘ageing’, rather than ‘Vergreisung’. Mr President, I regret my inability to speak Spanish.','Mr President, during the discussions on the Karas Report I reprimanded Mr García-Margallo y Marfil for using the word ‘Vergreisung’ with reference to old people, with its suggestion that they are too old. There seems to have been an error in translation here. Our Spanish colleague used the word ‘Alterung’, which means ‘ageing’, rather than ‘Vergreisung’. Mr President, I regret my inability to speak Spanish.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004532.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004533.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004533.txt','Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor. Firstly, I should like to say that Amendment No 118 does not replace Amendment No 46 in fact both need to be put to the vote. Secondly, with your permission, I have an oral amendment to propose to Amendment No 118. If the change were to be adopted I would be able to vote in favour of Amendment No 118. The change is as follows: instead of the word ‘exemption’ the words ‘this restriction’ should be added, and after ‘after legal personality’ we add, ‘only apply to the institutions responsible for the administration and management of such IORPs, if this restriction cannot be enforced under relevant national law against IORPs without legal personality.’ If this oral amendment is accepted – and I have agreed it with the Member who tabled the amendment – then I would be able to support a vote in favour.','Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor. Firstly, I should like to say that Amendment No 118 does not replace Amendment No 46; in fact both need to be put to the vote. Secondly, with your permission, I have an oral amendment to propose to Amendment No 118. If the change were to be adopted I would be able to vote in favour of Amendment No 118. The change is as follows: instead of the word ‘exemption’ the words ‘this restriction’ should be added, and after ‘after legal personality’ we add, ‘only apply to the institutions responsible for the administration and management of such IORPs, if this restriction cannot be enforced under relevant national law against IORPs without legal personality.’ If this oral amendment is accepted – and I have agreed it with the Member who tabled the amendment – then I would be able to support a vote in favour.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004534.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004534.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your initiative. The citizens want enlargement to build visible bridges. The Slovak government seeks a bridge in the form of the joining of Vienna and Bratislava airports into a mega-airport with a \'Transrapid\' rail line to improve transport links. This could well be the first stage of the Paris-Vienna route you have mentioned. I believe it would be a very important initiative to take it onward as far as Budapest. We also have, however, the shipping junction on the Danube, and in the long run this would become a triple junction. Do you think this programme could also facilitate the financing of junctions of this sort?','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your initiative. The citizens want enlargement to build visible bridges. The Slovak government seeks a bridge in the form of the joining of Vienna and Bratislava airports into a mega-airport with a \'Transrapid\' rail line to improve transport links. This could well be the first stage of the Paris-Vienna route you have mentioned. I believe it would be a very important initiative to take it onward as far as Budapest. We also have, however, the shipping junction on the Danube, and in the long run this would become a triple junction. Do you think this programme could also facilitate the financing of junctions of this sort?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004535.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004535.txt','Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.','Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system; on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community; on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal; we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004536.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004536.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004537.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004538.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004539.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004539.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know whether the country of origin is in fact also a criterion applied in selecting women.','Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know whether the country of origin is in fact also a criterion applied in selecting women.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100454.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100454.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market probably got its best birthday present today in the form of the Commissioner\'s words that, despite its achievements, his patience is wearing thin. I thank you for your impatience, hoping that, for the good of the internal market, all who operate in it and especially all who impede its progress will be made increasingly aware of how impatient you are. Europe must become a continent, and the EU must become a political union. We therefore give an unreserved ‘yes’ to an internal market that is developing fully and is able to give full expression to its dynamism for the good of Europe. We have only a year left to implement the internal market strategy for 1999/2004, a year in which we will need greater seriousness of purpose in place of half-heartedness, more speed in place of hesitancy and greater responsibility for the whole rather than parochialism. There is no mistaking the internal market\'s significance, which became apparent in the aftermath of 11 September. The stronger our internal market, the stronger is Europe\'s position in the world, and the more independent we are. This, then, makes me very glad that we are now discussing enlargement, as enlargement will extend our internal market and thereby strengthen Europe. The euro has made the internal market into a domestic market for many countries and thus strengthened it overall, so I also want to expressly welcome the internal market safeguard clause in the accession treaties. Directives need to be transposed with greater speed. We need the decision-making process to be speeded up, rather than have it take twenty-eight months as it did with company pension schemes. We need a debate to get the regulation of competences revised in the light of the internal market strategy and of the Lisbon strategy and made the basis of the work in the Convention. So what I expect of you – even bearing your impatience in mind – is that you avail yourself more of your right of initiative and name names rather than keeping quiet about those who are blocking progress.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market probably got its best birthday present today in the form of the Commissioner\'s words that, despite its achievements, his patience is wearing thin. I thank you for your impatience, hoping that, for the good of the internal market, all who operate in it and especially all who impede its progress will be made increasingly aware of how impatient you are. Europe must become a continent, and the EU must become a political union. We therefore give an unreserved ‘yes’ to an internal market that is developing fully and is able to give full expression to its dynamism for the good of Europe. We have only a year left to implement the internal market strategy for 1999/2004, a year in which we will need greater seriousness of purpose in place of half-heartedness, more speed in place of hesitancy and greater responsibility for the whole rather than parochialism. There is no mistaking the internal market\'s significance, which became apparent in the aftermath of 11 September. The stronger our internal market, the stronger is Europe\'s position in the world, and the more independent we are. This, then, makes me very glad that we are now discussing enlargement, as enlargement will extend our internal market and thereby strengthen Europe. The euro has made the internal market into a domestic market for many countries and thus strengthened it overall, so I also want to expressly welcome the internal market safeguard clause in the accession treaties. Directives need to be transposed with greater speed. We need the decision-making process to be speeded up, rather than have it take twenty-eight months as it did with company pension schemes. We need a debate to get the regulation of competences revised in the light of the internal market strategy and of the Lisbon strategy and made the basis of the work in the Convention. So what I expect of you – even bearing your impatience in mind – is that you avail yourself more of your right of initiative and name names rather than keeping quiet about those who are blocking progress.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004540.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004540.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004541.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004542.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004542.txt','Mr President, one reason why I would ask that we be given statistics on the Council’s attendance during the course of the last Presidencies is that I believe that the press would find it very interesting to see with what assiduity the Council attends the sittings of this House. (Applause)','Mr President, one reason why I would ask that we be given statistics on the Council’s attendance during the course of the last Presidencies is that I believe that the press would find it very interesting to see with what assiduity the Council attends the sittings of this House. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004543.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004543.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004544.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004544.txt','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004545.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004546.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004546.txt','Mr President, the vote on Sellafield was a first for the European Parliament. I think it is the first time that the European Parliament has spoken in favour of uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. I believe that the Council should, as a matter of urgency, and before the first accessions take place, resolve to draw up and implement such safety standards.','Mr President, the vote on Sellafield was a first for the European Parliament. I think it is the first time that the European Parliament has spoken in favour of uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. I believe that the Council should, as a matter of urgency, and before the first accessions take place, resolve to draw up and implement such safety standards.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004547.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004547.txt','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004548.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004549.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100455.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100455.txt','Mr President, enlargement presents us with really interesting tasks. I believe it to be important to the public that we should build visible bridges, one example of which is the bridge between Vienna and Bratislava. I believe that we should in fact, as part of the TEN programme – the Trans-European Networks – start on the building of visible bridges. I wish to urge the Commission to do everything possible to enable the public to see that these bridges are a guarantee of Europe\'s future.','Mr President, enlargement presents us with really interesting tasks. I believe it to be important to the public that we should build visible bridges, one example of which is the bridge between Vienna and Bratislava. I believe that we should in fact, as part of the TEN programme – the Trans-European Networks – start on the building of visible bridges. I wish to urge the Commission to do everything possible to enable the public to see that these bridges are a guarantee of Europe\'s future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004550.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004551.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004552.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004553.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004554.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004554.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, recreational craft can look back on a very important development. They were originally powered by two-stroke engines that really did pollute the environment and also produced a great deal of noise. What is noticeable about modern boats is that research and development have already achieved a great deal, and development can go ahead. I believe that we have found a joint solution here, one that also provides an incentive for the further development of this new technology, and I would like to thank Mr Callanan most warmly for seizing the initiative. What matters to us at the end of the day is that mobility should be ensured in the future, not only for the purposes of carrying on a business or profession, where it can of course very often be vital, but also in the sphere of sporting activity, where, so I believe, quite a bit has been achieved recently. What matters at the end of the day is that exhaust gases and noise should be kept to a minimum so that these are appropriate to the surroundings in question. I therefore believe that we have now found a solution with which we can all be happy. Let me again express my heartfelt gratitude and my hope that this may bring us an agreed outcome in Parliament too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, recreational craft can look back on a very important development. They were originally powered by two-stroke engines that really did pollute the environment and also produced a great deal of noise. What is noticeable about modern boats is that research and development have already achieved a great deal, and development can go ahead. I believe that we have found a joint solution here, one that also provides an incentive for the further development of this new technology, and I would like to thank Mr Callanan most warmly for seizing the initiative. What matters to us at the end of the day is that mobility should be ensured in the future, not only for the purposes of carrying on a business or profession, where it can of course very often be vital, but also in the sphere of sporting activity, where, so I believe, quite a bit has been achieved recently. What matters at the end of the day is that exhaust gases and noise should be kept to a minimum so that these are appropriate to the surroundings in question. I therefore believe that we have now found a solution with which we can all be happy. Let me again express my heartfelt gratitude and my hope that this may bring us an agreed outcome in Parliament too.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004555.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004556.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004557.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004558.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004559.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004559.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100456.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100456.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid; it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004560.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004561.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004561.txt','Mr President, a point of order: it is standard practice in the House for questions which cannot be adequately answered orally to be submitted in writing. I would ask the President-in-Office to at least answer our questions in writing if he cannot do so orally.','Mr President, a point of order: it is standard practice in the House for questions which cannot be adequately answered orally to be submitted in writing. I would ask the President-in-Office to at least answer our questions in writing if he cannot do so orally.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004562.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004562.txt','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004563.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004564.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004565.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004566.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004566.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004567.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004568.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004568.txt','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004569.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004569.txt','Mr President, you mentioned that you wanted to break off now. I urgently request that you continue the vote. We are fed up with constant changes to the agenda and postponements at short notice. I therefore ask that you quickly resume and complete the vote on the Ludford report and the rest of the agenda. (Applause)','Mr President, you mentioned that you wanted to break off now. I urgently request that you continue the vote. We are fed up with constant changes to the agenda and postponements at short notice. I therefore ask that you quickly resume and complete the vote on the Ludford report and the rest of the agenda. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100457.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100457.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004570.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004570.txt','Mr President, may I make a request? I would like an investigation into whether, during the vote on the van Hulten report, it was noted by Mr Ferber and recorded in the Minutes, that a Member was not present, which that Member subsequently confirmed. Is he entitled to call for a subsequent correction of the vote, which did not take place in the Chamber, which the Minutes indicate that he did?','Mr President, may I make a request? I would like an investigation into whether, during the vote on the van Hulten report, it was noted by Mr Ferber and recorded in the Minutes, that a Member was not present, which that Member subsequently confirmed. Is he entitled to call for a subsequent correction of the vote, which did not take place in the Chamber, which the Minutes indicate that he did?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004571.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004572.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004572.txt','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term; support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways; such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004573.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004574.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004574.txt','Mr President, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, ladies and gentlemen, corruption is an issue of significance in some countries desirous of joining the EU, and we are currently engaging in accession negotiations with them. Funds gained by privatisation have often disappeared from these countries in a questionable manner. Do you believe it would be possible to resolve these issues within the framework of accession negotiations, or at least to apply unambiguous legal provisions in this area?','Mr President, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, ladies and gentlemen, corruption is an issue of significance in some countries desirous of joining the EU, and we are currently engaging in accession negotiations with them. Funds gained by privatisation have often disappeared from these countries in a questionable manner. Do you believe it would be possible to resolve these issues within the framework of accession negotiations, or at least to apply unambiguous legal provisions in this area?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004575.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004575.txt','Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.','Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004576.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004577.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004577.txt','Mr President, in the course of this discussion on the Klaß report, I have been unable to comprehend why some people have persistently confused the terms ‘genotype’ and ‘genetic modification’. This has actually hampered the discussion because ‘genotype’ is a prototype in wine, and wine growing is an extremely varied and dynamic sector characterised by long-established traditions and ancient cultures. Vine material provides the basis for optimum grape and wine production in terms of quality, class and quantity. Therefore we need these types of vine in order to preserve the variety of the wine, in terms of characteristic flavour, and to prevent cut-price enterprises from undermining this regional variety of vine propagating material and working against it.','Mr President, in the course of this discussion on the Klaß report, I have been unable to comprehend why some people have persistently confused the terms ‘genotype’ and ‘genetic modification’. This has actually hampered the discussion because ‘genotype’ is a prototype in wine, and wine growing is an extremely varied and dynamic sector characterised by long-established traditions and ancient cultures. Vine material provides the basis for optimum grape and wine production in terms of quality, class and quantity. Therefore we need these types of vine in order to preserve the variety of the wine, in terms of characteristic flavour, and to prevent cut-price enterprises from undermining this regional variety of vine propagating material and working against it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004578.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004579.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004579.txt','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100458.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100458.txt','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43');
INSERT INTO `document` VALUES ('1004580.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004581.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004581.txt','Mr President, I should just like to clarify the point that there is no longer a recital A but, by agreement with Mr Martelli, a new Paragraph 1.','Mr President, I should just like to clarify the point that there is no longer a recital A but, by agreement with Mr Martelli, a new Paragraph 1.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004582.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004583.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004583.txt','Mr President, I want to ask about Europe’s next big ‘referendum’, namely the elections to the European Parliament on 13 June next year. What is the Presidency contemplating doing to increase voter turnout on that day, along with their understanding of the European Union?','Mr President, I want to ask about Europe’s next big ‘referendum’, namely the elections to the European Parliament on 13 June next year. What is the Presidency contemplating doing to increase voter turnout on that day, along with their understanding of the European Union?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004584.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004584.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area; we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004585.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004586.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004586.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it; we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004587.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004587.txt','Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport. As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?','Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper \"Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport\". As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004588.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004588.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004589.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004589.txt','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100459.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100459.txt','Madam President, I deeply regret the fact that I must now recommend to my group that it reject my own report in the final vote, because I, like my group, really do not think that it is fair for a national problem to be brought before the European Parliament. (Applause)','Madam President, I deeply regret the fact that I must now recommend to my group that it reject my own report in the final vote, because I, like my group, really do not think that it is fair for a national problem to be brought before the European Parliament. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004590.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004590.txt','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004591.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004592.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004593.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004594.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004594.txt','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004595.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004596.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004596.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004597.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004598.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004599.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10046.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10046.txt','Mr President, perhaps something was lost in translation. My question was: are there any plans to use external professional support or recruitment advisors so as to ensure that the best possible staff are recruited?','Mr President, perhaps something was lost in translation. My question was: are there any plans to use external professional support or recruitment advisors so as to ensure that the best possible staff are recruited?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100460.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100460.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the poorest countries in the world – or so the media tell us – have asked to be allocated their own sugar import quotas. Will the Commission be prepared to include considerations such as these in the legislative proposals that it is due to present in the summer? Secondly, when, in the course of this summer, can the Members of this House expect to see the actual Commission proposals?','Mr President, Commissioner, the poorest countries in the world – or so the media tell us – have asked to be allocated their own sugar import quotas. Will the Commission be prepared to include considerations such as these in the legislative proposals that it is due to present in the summer? Secondly, when, in the course of this summer, can the Members of this House expect to see the actual Commission proposals?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004600.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004600.txt','Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission\'s document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.','Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission\'s document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004601.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004602.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004602.txt','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004603.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004603.txt','I specifically asked the President of the Council if he is prepared to provide comparable statistics in this area. That was my question: will the Council try to obtain comparable statistics?','I specifically asked the President of the Council if he is prepared to provide comparable statistics in this area. That was my question: will the Council try to obtain comparable statistics?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004604.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004604.txt','Mr President, I think they did not ring the bell for long enough, and you can see what happened – no one is here! So could you make sure they ring it longer and louder in future? (Laughter)','Mr President, I think they did not ring the bell for long enough, and you can see what happened – no one is here! So could you make sure they ring it longer and louder in future? (Laughter)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004605.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004605.txt','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen; we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004606.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004607.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004608.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004608.txt','Mr President, I would like to ask how Question Time came to be dropped yesterday although there was enough time to include it in the course of the part-session. There is no Question Time today either. I believe that this is one of Members\' fundamental rights and I would like to ask that Question Time should be held whenever possible.','Mr President, I would like to ask how Question Time came to be dropped yesterday although there was enough time to include it in the course of the part-session. There is no Question Time today either. I believe that this is one of Members\' fundamental rights and I would like to ask that Question Time should be held whenever possible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004609.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004609.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this issue does not just concern Spain. For instance, yesterday I got a call from a road haulier from the top of whose lorry immigrants had cut a way in through the cover during the crossing. The British border authorities then arrested these immigrants and the haulier had to pay a fine, although he was unaware immigrants were on board. I therefore put the following supplementary question: what is the Council Presidency thinking of doing to get to grips with this type of activity?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this issue does not just concern Spain. For instance, yesterday I got a call from a road haulier from the top of whose lorry immigrants had cut a way in through the cover during the crossing. The British border authorities then arrested these immigrants and the haulier had to pay a fine, although he was unaware immigrants were on board. I therefore put the following supplementary question: what is the Council Presidency thinking of doing to get to grips with this type of activity?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100461.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004610.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004610.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004611.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004612.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004613.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004613.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004614.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004615.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004615.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I agree with the Commissioner obviously, the routes across the Alps are in competition with one another. But, as we all know, these routes are in a highly sensitive zone. If one motorway company has saved money over a number of years in order to be able to offer a better solution, then my question is, why can we not leave it to the motorway companies to decide if they wish to offer technical alternatives in order to improve traffic across the Alps? I would be interested to know what you think about this and whether we should leave it to the companies involved to decide the technical alternatives.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I agree with the Commissioner; obviously, the routes across the Alps are in competition with one another. But, as we all know, these routes are in a highly sensitive zone. If one motorway company has saved money over a number of years in order to be able to offer a better solution, then my question is, why can we not leave it to the motorway companies to decide if they wish to offer technical alternatives in order to improve traffic across the Alps? I would be interested to know what you think about this and whether we should leave it to the companies involved to decide the technical alternatives.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004616.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004616.txt','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004617.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004617.txt','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector; we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004618.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004619.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100462.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100462.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004620.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004620.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004621.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004621.txt','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004622.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004623.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004623.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004624.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004624.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004625.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004625.txt','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas; how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004626.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004626.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dialogue with citizens is one of the main issues for us on a daily basis and I would therefore like to know what the Council intends to do to bring the post-Nice process closer to our citizens. What we could do is set up our own chat rooms, for example on the Internet, where citizens could use a search engine to locate specific subjects and browse through subjects of personal interest. I also think it would be a good idea if we provided video streams of debates in Parliament, the Council and the Commission in each language, in order to give citizens an opportunity to become more involved in this dialogue. Do you think this might be something for the Swedish Presidency to focus on after the Lisbon Summit?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dialogue with citizens is one of the main issues for us on a daily basis and I would therefore like to know what the Council intends to do to bring the post-Nice process closer to our citizens. What we could do is set up our own chat rooms, for example on the Internet, where citizens could use a search engine to locate specific subjects and browse through subjects of personal interest. I also think it would be a good idea if we provided video streams of debates in Parliament, the Council and the Commission in each language, in order to give citizens an opportunity to become more involved in this dialogue. Do you think this might be something for the Swedish Presidency to focus on after the Lisbon Summit?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004627.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004628.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004628.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004629.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004629.txt','Mr President, I should like to give an explanation on the Honeyball report.','Mr President, I should like to give an explanation on the Honeyball report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100463.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100463.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production; connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield; moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004630.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004630.txt','Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.','Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004631.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004631.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you know that as the rapporteur on this issue, this is of great interest to me. As regards your current statement, which is hopefully more comprehensive and detailed on paper than what we have just heard, I have two main problems: firstly, how do you verify that the funds provided by the European Union for the information campaign are actually being used efficiently and constructively, and in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations and the basic political message, in the Member States? I ask this question because I have the feeling that we have become more of a channel for EU funding and are relinquishing our leading role in the information campaign under the guise of subsidiarity. And secondly: what do you intend to do to persuade the Ministers responsible, especially the ECOFIN Council, and include them in this much-needed action programme in the information campaign on a mandatory basis, not just in an advisory capacity?','Mr President, Commissioner, you know that as the rapporteur on this issue, this is of great interest to me. As regards your current statement, which is hopefully more comprehensive and detailed on paper than what we have just heard, I have two main problems: firstly, how do you verify that the funds provided by the European Union for the information campaign are actually being used efficiently and constructively, and in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations and the basic political message, in the Member States? I ask this question because I have the feeling that we have become more of a channel for EU funding and are relinquishing our leading role in the information campaign under the guise of subsidiarity. And secondly: what do you intend to do to persuade the Ministers responsible, especially the ECOFIN Council, and include them in this much-needed action programme in the information campaign on a mandatory basis, not just in an advisory capacity?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004632.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004632.txt','Mr President, this part contradicts a resolution already adopted by this House on the liberal professions. I therefore ask that it be amended along the lines we have already agreed to, so that the oral amendment would read: ‘Considers that the Commission should not only take account of the market situation in applying the provisions of competition law to the liberal professions, but must also bear in mind the social aspects and tasks in the public interest. Calls therefore on the Commission to allow associations of the liberal professions the discretion to take measures to permit them to perform their functions correctly.’','Mr President, this part contradicts a resolution already adopted by this House on the liberal professions. I therefore ask that it be amended along the lines we have already agreed to, so that the oral amendment would read: ‘Considers that the Commission should not only take account of the market situation in applying the provisions of competition law to the liberal professions, but must also bear in mind the social aspects and tasks in the public interest. Calls therefore on the Commission to allow associations of the liberal professions the discretion to take measures to permit them to perform their functions correctly.’','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004633.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004633.txt','Mr President, I abstained in the vote on the request to refer back the Duhamel report, by way of protest. I am of course a fierce opponent of the extreme right here in Parliament. But I am deeply disturbed, Mr President, that it is possible here in this Chamber for a Member of the left – I have forgotten now who it was – to call elected Members of this House polluters of this Chamber, without you calling that Member to order. We should not accept language like that, because it is exactly the kind of language used by the extreme right in power in my home country when I was not yet born or was just a small child. We should not accept this, whoever uses such language, whether it comes from the extreme right or the extreme left.','Mr President, I abstained in the vote on the request to refer back the Duhamel report, by way of protest. I am of course a fierce opponent of the extreme right here in Parliament. But I am deeply disturbed, Mr President, that it is possible here in this Chamber for a Member of the left – I have forgotten now who it was – to call elected Members of this House \"polluters\" of this Chamber, without you calling that Member to order. We should not accept language like that, because it is exactly the kind of language used by the extreme right in power in my home country when I was not yet born or was just a small child. We should not accept this, whoever uses such language, whether it comes from the extreme right or the extreme left.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004634.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004634.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004635.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004636.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004637.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004637.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004638.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004639.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100464.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1004640.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1004640.txt','Mr President, this debate is already overdue because the BSE crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. We currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. It is because of the BSE crisis that we are pressed for time. When, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in Europe? Will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs?','Mr President, this debate is already overdue because the BSE crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. We currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. It is because of the BSE crisis that we are pressed for time. When, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in Europe? Will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs?','2016-08-15 15:23:43');
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `document` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;

--
-- Table structure for table `documenttopicdistribution`
--

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `documenttopicdistribution`;
/*!40101 SET @saved_cs_client     = @@character_set_client */;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = utf8 */;
CREATE TABLE `documenttopicdistribution` (
  `documentid` varchar(45) NOT NULL,
  `Fraction` double DEFAULT NULL,
  `entitytitle` varchar(200) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`documentid`,`entitytitle`),
  KEY `fk_TopicDistribution_Email1_idx` (`documentid`),
  KEY `fk_Distribution_Entity1_idx` (`entitytitle`),
  CONSTRAINT `fk_Distribution_Entity1` FOREIGN KEY (`entitytitle`) REFERENCES `entity` (`Title`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION,
  CONSTRAINT `fk_TopicDistribution_Email1` FOREIGN KEY (`documentid`) REFERENCES `document` (`Id`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = @saved_cs_client */;

--
-- Dumping data for table `documenttopicdistribution`
--

LOCK TABLES `documenttopicdistribution` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `documenttopicdistribution` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `documenttopicdistribution` VALUES ('10010.txt',0.6592643022720194,'Balance_sheet'),('10010.txt',0.3407356977279818,'Supermajority'),('10011.txt',1,'1973_oil_crisis'),('1001100.txt',0.23875076315887053,'Rail_transport'),('1001100.txt',0.1655697083473858,'Road'),('1001100.txt',0.595679528493744,'Traffic'),('1001101.txt',0.6951067388840546,'Joint_resolution'),('1001101.txt',0.09813570530118015,'Skill'),('1001101.txt',0.20675755581476501,'Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union'),('1001102.txt',0.5817157997838851,'Law_enforcement'),('1001102.txt',0.3245705241576979,'Law_of_obligations'),('1001102.txt',0.09371367605841752,'Prosecutor'),('1001103.txt',1,'War'),('1001104.txt',0.11689424057526066,'Gross_domestic_product'),('1001104.txt',0.3447351471034581,'Pension'),('1001104.txt',0.415601364314374,'Retirement'),('1001104.txt',0.122769248006907,'Wage'),('1001105.txt',0.3680973204014864,'Democracy'),('1001105.txt',0.6319026795985138,'Separation_of_powers'),('1001106.txt',0.2580692753994911,'Committee'),('1001106.txt',0.1124878349348674,'International_relations'),('1001106.txt',0.6294428896656415,'Theory_of_justification'),('1001107.txt',1.0000043997387242,'Ethics'),('1001107.txt',-0.0000043997387249275035,'Value_(ethics)'),('1001108.txt',0.4653785409508473,'Czech_Republic'),('1001108.txt',0.38719383584377415,'Freedom_Party_of_Austria'),('1001108.txt',0.14742762320537842,'Temelín'),('1001109.txt',1,'Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union'),('100111.txt',0.6593653746902965,'Economics'),('100111.txt',0.15300406804876276,'Independent_politician'),('100111.txt',0.08650919563927502,'Misdemeanor'),('100111.txt',0.10112136162166525,'Public_administration'),('1001111.txt',1,'Agriculture'),('1001112.txt',0.18134212808502104,'Commonwealth_of_Independent_States'),('1001112.txt',0.8186578719149789,'War'),('1001113.txt',0.35937994041405885,'Affirmative_action'),('1001113.txt',0.37610229398244105,'Professional_certification'),('1001113.txt',0.19113880065390138,'Salary'),('1001113.txt',0.07337896494959868,'Social_progress'),('1001114.txt',1.0000025058944326,'Nuclear_weapon'),('1001114.txt',-0.0000025058944340604993,'Russian_Empire'),('1001115.txt',0.23551978132548132,'Economy_of_Europe'),('1001115.txt',0.5067530907079134,'Employment'),('1001115.txt',0.2577271279666051,'Tax'),('1001116.txt',0.5949595547023849,'Nuclear_physics'),('1001116.txt',0.2773282836635004,'Nuclear_power'),('1001116.txt',0.12771216163411458,'Nuclear_reactor'),('1001117.txt',1,'Czechs'),('1001118.txt',1,'Public_administration'),('1001119.txt',0.5597386003731588,'Biarritz'),('1001119.txt',0.20649016061888156,'The_Leftovers_(TV_series)'),('1001119.txt',0.23377123900795907,'Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union'),('1001120.txt',1,'Remuneration'),('1001122.txt',1,'Attitude_(psychology)'),('1001124.txt',0.27479176792828913,'Austrians'),('1001124.txt',0.46311047744516337,'Institutions_of_the_European_Union'),('1001124.txt',0.2620977546265476,'Strasbourg'),('1001125.txt',1.000005651049237,'The_Motions_(Matthew_West_song)'),('1001125.txt',-0.0000056510492379718555,'Unemployment'),('1001126.txt',0.5466298525536294,'Nuclear_reactor'),('1001126.txt',0.4533701474463706,'Sustainability'),('1001127.txt',0.4634864813576646,'Droit_de_suite'),('1001127.txt',0.10582791136434165,'Laconic_phrase'),('1001127.txt',0.4306856072779937,'Switzerland'),('1001128.txt',1,'International_relations'),('100113.txt',0.3445110818007857,'Georg_Jarzembowski'),('100113.txt',0.6554889181992152,'Transit_Agreement_(1972)'),('1001130.txt',0.9997999247162149,'Agenda_2000'),('1001130.txt',0.0002000752837845463,'Deception'),('1001131.txt',1,'Faith'),('1001133.txt',1,'Labour_economics'),('1001134.txt',0.6792043511170789,'Fact'),('1001134.txt',0.32079564888292,'Freedom_Party_of_Austria'),('1001135.txt',0.42183764054173917,'Economy_of_Europe'),('1001135.txt',0.13089121758712474,'Inflation'),('1001135.txt',0.00010798573604498697,'Reductionism'),('1001135.txt',0.44716315613509106,'Unemployment'),('1001136.txt',1.0000103195359056,'Creation_myth'),('1001136.txt',-0.000010319535905084036,'Peace'),('1001138.txt',0.5929453373138439,'Amnesty_law'),('1001138.txt',0.4070546626861559,'Bohunice_(Prachatice_District)'),('1001139.txt',0.2789365804147913,'Amsterdam_Treaty'),('1001139.txt',0.17871813858419655,'Johannesburg'),('1001139.txt',0.5423452810010121,'Self-esteem'),('100114.txt',1.0000053386331313,'Act_of_Congress'),('100114.txt',-0.0000053386331326534905,'Pollution'),('1001140.txt',0.08575702555148891,'Germans'),('1001140.txt',0.5757135305209734,'Israel'),('1001140.txt',0.13668872443190755,'Mediation'),('1001140.txt',0.20184071949562996,'Palestinians'),('1001141.txt',0.7700368837579413,'Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)'),('1001141.txt',0.04901139015170661,'Slavery'),('1001141.txt',0.18095172609035234,'Surveillance'),('1001142.txt',1,'Transpose'),('1001143.txt',-0.000003063914686916824,'Johannesburg'),('1001143.txt',1.0000030639146873,'Supply_and_demand'),('1001144.txt',0.7325587612875614,'Crime'),('1001144.txt',0.2674412387124389,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1001145.txt',0.4726005714016679,'Biofuel'),('1001145.txt',0.11748317691724647,'Excise'),('1001145.txt',0.1848764948858966,'Sustainability'),('1001145.txt',0.2250397567951885,'Tax'),('1001146.txt',0.32284571912285925,'Freedom_Party_of_Austria'),('1001146.txt',0.6771542808771408,'Strasbourg'),('1001147.txt',1,'Company'),('1001148.txt',0.22943547119453067,'Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)'),('1001148.txt',0.05228377242875476,'Nordic_countries'),('1001148.txt',0.7182807563767138,'No_Exit'),('100115.txt',1,'1973_oil_crisis'),('1001150.txt',1.000029444539118,'Eurodac'),('1001150.txt',-0.000007133793677506799,'Procedural_law'),('1001150.txt',-0.000022310745440652153,'Refugee'),('1001151.txt',0.2780379486709219,'Privacy'),('1001151.txt',0.7219620513290776,'Sense'),('1001152.txt',0.03853683394020509,'Dublin_Regulation'),('1001152.txt',0.36520073057289454,'Geneva_Conventions'),('1001152.txt',0.36245361255667125,'Refugee'),('1001152.txt',0.2338088229302285,'Social_issue'),('1001153.txt',1,'Tax_evasion'),('1001154.txt',0.0041554608040153705,'Behavior'),('1001154.txt',0.9958445391959844,'Voting'),('1001155.txt',0.325485519270268,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1001155.txt',0.674514480729732,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets'),('1001156.txt',1,'Peace'),('1001157.txt',0.45986939927416176,'Advertising'),('1001157.txt',0.5401306007258386,'Renewable_energy'),('1001158.txt',-0.000003344733267669285,'Climate'),('1001158.txt',-0.000007835272144467178,'Renewable_energy'),('1001158.txt',1.0000111800054146,'The_Way_Ahead'),('1001159.txt',0.116432838897637,'Economic_growth'),('1001159.txt',0.4374856159284916,'Economy_of_Europe'),('1001159.txt',0.4460815451738719,'Equity_(finance)'),('100116.txt',1,'Unemployment'),('1001160.txt',0.04001010583684851,'Budget_of_the_European_Union'),('1001160.txt',0.5440383759319969,'National_parliaments_of_the_European_Union'),('1001160.txt',0.4159515182311547,'Tax'),('1001162.txt',0.1233497284375765,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights'),('1001162.txt',0.33309449972436195,'Freedom_Party_of_Austria'),('1001162.txt',0.02727278788360589,'National_parliaments_of_the_European_Union'),('1001162.txt',0.5162829839544563,'Ratification'),('1001163.txt',1,'Flood'),('1001164.txt',0.4467411833320936,'Affirmative_action'),('1001164.txt',0.5532588166679064,'Woman'),('1001165.txt',0.9999831655627283,'Fraud'),('1001165.txt',0.000016834437271671205,'Reductionism'),('1001166.txt',1,'Organized_crime'),('1001167.txt',0.3150117882850651,'Information'),('1001167.txt',0.4749764875192603,'John_Favour'),('1001167.txt',0.06987606646373104,'Public_administration'),('1001167.txt',0.1401356577319437,'Reason'),('1001169.txt',1,'Transport'),('100117.txt',0.13387887487778014,'Ethics'),('100117.txt',0.12444386243541804,'Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development'),('100117.txt',0.7416772626868023,'Stem_cell'),('1001171.txt',0.34556351501564675,'Ideology'),('1001171.txt',0.6544364849843534,'Theory_of_justification'),('1001172.txt',1,'Choice'),('1001173.txt',1,'National_Assembly_(France)'),('1001174.txt',0.12661074812036452,'Democracy'),('1001174.txt',0.24178787391325124,'Freedom_Party_of_Austria'),('1001174.txt',0.0005103476182995063,'Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('1001174.txt',0.6310910303480847,'Voting'),('1001176.txt',1.0000176991612342,'Leisure'),('1001176.txt',-0.000007426160004013165,'Road_traffic_safety'),('1001176.txt',-0.000010273001229461133,'Self-employment'),('1001177.txt',0.5403070843788521,'Survey_methodology'),('1001177.txt',0.45969291562114817,'Unemployment'),('1001178.txt',0.5970747000086992,'Lawsuit'),('1001178.txt',0.4029252999913008,'Reading_(legislature)'),('1001179.txt',0.09184272444067951,'Appeal'),('1001179.txt',0.5451612872803947,'Food'),('1001179.txt',0.3629959882789256,'Great_Expectations'),('100118.txt',1.0000445050314657,'Art'),('100118.txt',-0.00001816032034500135,'Culture'),('100118.txt',-0.00002634471112154081,'Eastern_Europe'),('1001180.txt',0.5351792002392697,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union'),('1001180.txt',0.4648207997607303,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1001181.txt',0.2292141905002016,'BBC_News'),('1001181.txt',0.24861461056057987,'Fear'),('1001181.txt',0.19699079582571635,'Information'),('1001181.txt',0.32518040311350216,'Risk'),('1001182.txt',0.2674728378472043,'Airline'),('1001182.txt',0.7325271621527955,'Competition_(economics)'),('1001183.txt',1.0000055983575962,'Competition_(economics)'),('1001183.txt',-0.0000055983575959148185,'Research'),('1001184.txt',1,'Israel'),('1001185.txt',0.8169954945639755,'Optimism'),('1001185.txt',0.1830045054360236,'Transpose'),('1001187.txt',1,'Czechs'),('1001188.txt',0.6890994477739208,'Art'),('1001188.txt',0.31090055222608054,'Culture'),('1001189.txt',0.3291200384215916,'Conversation'),('1001189.txt',0.6708799615784083,'Creation_myth'),('100119.txt',0.1345057424245249,'Hartmut_Nassauer'),('100119.txt',0.8654942575754753,'Justice'),('1001190.txt',-0.00000917579154078155,'Austria_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest'),('1001190.txt',1.0000103283278658,'National_Council_(Austria)'),('1001190.txt',-0.0000011525363256826774,'Negotiation'),('1001191.txt',0.49830322479422196,'Basel'),('1001191.txt',0.501696775205778,'Budget'),('1001192.txt',0.7264281793089581,'Iraq'),('1001192.txt',0.27357182069104186,'Preventive_war'),('1001194.txt',-0.000007021204439256961,'Transport'),('1001194.txt',1.0000070212044372,'Tropical_cyclone'),('1001195.txt',0.20750518295676534,'Equity_(finance)'),('1001195.txt',0.7924948170432345,'Loan'),('1001196.txt',0.21714544730058347,'Pragmatism'),('1001196.txt',0.782854552699417,'Teleology'),('1001197.txt',0.2614613013032984,'Liberalization'),('1001197.txt',0.16421459049539971,'Mail'),('1001197.txt',0.5743241082013015,'Social_issue'),('1001198.txt',0.00008759433342353873,'Balkans'),('1001198.txt',0.9999124056665749,'Unemployment'),('1001199.txt',1,'Directive_(European_Union)'),('10012.txt',1,'European_Food_Safety_Authority'),('100120.txt',0.3673344848995878,'Jacob_Söderman'),('100120.txt',0.0003063161225405338,'Ombudsman'),('100120.txt',0.6323591989778714,'Slavery'),('1001200.txt',1,'Democracy'),('1001201.txt',0.5730335298531624,'France'),('1001201.txt',0.22463085806586913,'Portugal'),('1001201.txt',0.2023356120809685,'Referee'),('1001202.txt',0.26354299904391576,'Jacob_Söderman'),('1001202.txt',0.7364570009560854,'Ombudsman'),('1001203.txt',0.3042093718248016,'Nuclear_power'),('1001203.txt',0.6957906281751993,'Referee'),('1001204.txt',1,'Iraq'),('1001205.txt',0.18540000125271253,'Aesthetics'),('1001205.txt',0.10380888675447916,'Contract'),('1001205.txt',0.7107911119928088,'Tax'),('1001206.txt',0.456164547104803,'Censorship'),('1001206.txt',0.5438354528951971,'Tax_rate'),('1001207.txt',0.3374781459409065,'Carlo_Fatuzzo'),('1001207.txt',0.12735944018707332,'Judge'),('1001207.txt',0.5351624138720198,'Supreme_court'),('1001208.txt',1,'Renewable_energy'),('1001209.txt',1,'Patent'),('100121.txt',1,'European_Committee_for_Standardization'),('1001210.txt',1,'French_ship_Assuré_(1667)'),('1001212.txt',1,'Labour_economics'),('1001213.txt',0.23437198903112932,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('1001213.txt',0.7656280109688709,'Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins'),('1001214.txt',0.3174352288744417,'Art'),('1001214.txt',0.6825647711255576,'Work_of_art'),('1001215.txt',1,'Compatibilism'),('1001216.txt',0.19831490008839453,'Government_budget'),('1001216.txt',0.4263247807788133,'Government_budget_balance'),('1001216.txt',0.2762364349676716,'Law_of_obligations'),('1001216.txt',0.09912388416512082,'Mergers_and_acquisitions'),('1001217.txt',0.32969689629796983,'Joint_resolution'),('1001217.txt',0.1947623314783564,'Jo_Leinen'),('1001217.txt',0.47554077222367386,'Non-Inscrits'),('1001218.txt',1,'The_Leftovers_(TV_series)'),('1001219.txt',-0.000002641900902735913,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union'),('1001219.txt',-0.000007245696693858614,'Culture'),('1001219.txt',1.0000098875975965,'The_Pleased'),('100122.txt',1,'Tax_incidence'),('1001220.txt',1,'Terrorism'),('1001221.txt',0.24022233790947572,'Conflict_resolution'),('1001221.txt',0.7597776620905242,'Mediation'),('1001222.txt',-0.00001524279886804392,'Border'),('1001222.txt',-0.000029275870956436234,'Rail_transport'),('1001222.txt',1.000090638584207,'Traffic'),('1001222.txt',-0.00004611991438197866,'Trans-European_Networks'),('1001223.txt',1,'Finance'),('1001225.txt',0.23953713491803227,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('1001225.txt',0.5832146923959808,'Cattle'),('1001225.txt',0.1772481726859874,'Incineration'),('1001226.txt',-0.000007236761939022383,'Manufacturing'),('1001226.txt',1.0000138924059772,'Nuclear_weapon'),('1001226.txt',-0.000006655644037891463,'September_11_attacks'),('1001227.txt',1,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1001228.txt',0.14849779110170583,'Child'),('1001228.txt',0.4228983874535329,'Fear'),('1001228.txt',0.42860382144476167,'Non-governmental_organization'),('100123.txt',1,'Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development'),('1001231.txt',0.10835160929913548,'Bill_(law)'),('1001231.txt',0.2501264770897718,'Non-Inscrits'),('1001231.txt',0.190474260256877,'Repeal'),('1001231.txt',0.45104765335421554,'Supermajority'),('1001232.txt',1,'Meaning_(linguistics)'),('1001233.txt',-0.00003806854432460781,'Dublin'),('1001233.txt',-0.000014099877689207977,'European_Food_Safety_Authority'),('1001233.txt',1.000052168422013,'Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins'),('1001234.txt',0.18124656111852652,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union'),('1001234.txt',0.3234503303769219,'Legislature'),('1001234.txt',0.4953031085045519,'Ratification'),('1001235.txt',0.5840673419141149,'Defamation'),('1001235.txt',0.41593265808588575,'Far-right_politics'),('1001238.txt',1,'Beef'),('1001239.txt',0.4038735179695273,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('1001239.txt',0.596126482030473,'European_integration'),('100124.txt',0.028851706978016547,'Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('100124.txt',0.000052260653250525394,'Retirement'),('100124.txt',0.00004503276236567917,'Salary'),('100124.txt',0.9710509996063679,'Wrestling'),('1001240.txt',1.000004547221406,'Energy_development'),('1001240.txt',-0.000004547221403633488,'Nuclear_power'),('1001241.txt',0.49561358818188594,'Price_of_oil'),('1001241.txt',0.3230157738385724,'Renewable_energy'),('1001241.txt',0.18137063797954253,'Thought'),('1001242.txt',0.26113826688065467,'Ethics'),('1001242.txt',0.11651985667605175,'Human'),('1001242.txt',0.622341876443293,'Stem_cell'),('1001243.txt',0.4486228796565242,'September_11_attacks'),('1001243.txt',0.5513771203434757,'Terrorism'),('1001244.txt',-0.00000836297928705291,'Crime'),('1001244.txt',1.000026300055703,'Law_of_obligations'),('1001244.txt',-0.00001793707641563653,'Money_laundering'),('1001245.txt',1,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1001247.txt',1,'Joking_Apart'),('1001248.txt',-0.00001393587480227103,'Copyright'),('1001248.txt',1.000050854446186,'Droit_de_suite'),('1001248.txt',-0.00002085903077727679,'Switzerland'),('1001248.txt',-0.000016059540606034588,'United_States'),('1001249.txt',1,'Head_of_government'),('100125.txt',1,'September_11_attacks'),('1001250.txt',1,'Nuclear_reactor'),('1001251.txt',1,'Czech_Republic'),('1001252.txt',0.3424786051465673,'Natural_gas'),('1001252.txt',0.6575213948534326,'Renewable_energy'),('1001253.txt',0.40013630432540526,'Agriculture'),('1001253.txt',0.5998636956745946,'Tonne'),('1001255.txt',1,'Nuclear_power_plant'),('1001256.txt',0.09123729762364226,'Reductionism'),('1001256.txt',0.5478650292788423,'Structural_Funds_and_Cohesion_Fund'),('1001256.txt',0.3608976730975142,'Unemployment'),('1001257.txt',0.21135905196619012,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('1001257.txt',0.7886409480338107,'Incineration'),('1001258.txt',1,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights'),('100126.txt',1,'Renewable_energy'),('1001260.txt',1,'Germans'),('1001261.txt',0.545004898753041,'Argument'),('1001261.txt',0.25996171582957817,'Strasbourg'),('1001261.txt',0.19503338541738038,'Theory_of_justification'),('1001262.txt',1,'Point_of_view_(philosophy)'),('1001264.txt',1,'Survey_methodology'),('1001265.txt',0.12774863518082788,'Europe'),('1001265.txt',0.43214551781278565,'Tax_evasion'),('1001265.txt',0.44010584700638633,'Value-added_tax'),('1001266.txt',-0.000012726594607237482,'French_ship_Assuré_(1667)'),('1001266.txt',1.0000127265946077,'Supreme_court'),('1001268.txt',0.25242054821750914,'Greenhouse_gas'),('1001268.txt',0.7475794517824905,'Tax'),('100127.txt',-0.000014758162892649859,'Flood'),('100127.txt',1.000035268504344,'Greenhouse_gas'),('100127.txt',-0.000020510341451036318,'Renewable_energy'),('1001270.txt',1,'Patent'),('1001271.txt',0.5196581070066559,'Liberty'),('1001271.txt',0.48034189299334357,'Structural_Funds_and_Cohesion_Fund'),('1001272.txt',0.671632505011374,'Credit_(finance)'),('1001272.txt',0.32836749498862594,'Unfair_business_practices'),('1001273.txt',1.0000185687873393,'Natural_gas'),('1001273.txt',-0.000018568787339086254,'Price_of_oil'),('1001274.txt',1,'Paris'),('1001275.txt',0.19627006918126072,'Head_of_government'),('1001275.txt',0.8037299308187397,'Rebellion'),('1001276.txt',1,'Subsidiarity'),('1001278.txt',0.33187908544084044,'Damages'),('1001278.txt',0.5507053565510373,'Faith'),('1001278.txt',0.11741555800812174,'Legal_liability'),('1001279.txt',0.25960430740956625,'Agenda_2000'),('1001279.txt',0.15215138321905794,'Economics'),('1001279.txt',0.23075417510868174,'Structural_Funds_and_Cohesion_Fund'),('1001279.txt',0.3574901342626934,'Wage'),('1001280.txt',-0.000001429193063630351,'All_the_Amendments'),('1001280.txt',-0.000005469837114143668,'Amnesty_law'),('1001280.txt',1.000006899030179,'Collectivism'),('1001281.txt',1,'Balanced_budget'),('1001282.txt',0.13948825385924338,'Democratic_deficit'),('1001282.txt',0.5261259417351656,'Jo_Leinen'),('1001282.txt',0.030656842413355007,'Logical_consequence'),('1001282.txt',0.3037289619922356,'Political_party'),('1001284.txt',1,'Tobacco'),('1001285.txt',0.10383682783436923,'Attitude_(psychology)'),('1001285.txt',0.3046273773212632,'Biarritz'),('1001285.txt',0.5915357948443672,'Judge'),('1001286.txt',0.5198531635961147,'Israel'),('1001286.txt',0.3652274479206028,'Mediation'),('1001286.txt',0.11491938848328288,'United_States'),('1001287.txt',1,'United_Nations'),('1001288.txt',1,'Lipservice'),('100129.txt',1,'Agriculture'),('1001290.txt',0.18418581750678278,'Energy_development'),('1001290.txt',0.11384048264147881,'Nuclear_power'),('1001290.txt',0.701973699851738,'Renewable_energy'),('1001291.txt',1.0000175608959052,'Consumer'),('1001291.txt',-0.00001756089590502604,'Crime'),('1001292.txt',0.0001861681742916464,'Agenda_21'),('1001292.txt',0.027715566226171058,'Art'),('1001292.txt',0.03659281947044344,'Environmental_protection'),('1001292.txt',0.9355054461290943,'Sustainable_tourism'),('1001293.txt',0.193382835807936,'Efficiency'),('1001293.txt',0.01723321068084868,'Judge'),('1001293.txt',0.7893839535112158,'Payment'),('1001294.txt',0.00001700524585277035,'Health'),('1001294.txt',0.00001487934799430672,'Public_health'),('1001294.txt',0.9999253094159049,'Rationality'),('1001294.txt',0.00004280599024733431,'Tobacco'),('1001295.txt',1,'Budget'),('1001296.txt',1,'Labour_economics'),('1001297.txt',1,'Lipservice'),('1001298.txt',0.4979660233794078,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs'),('1001298.txt',0.24011372815784252,'Sweden'),('1001298.txt',0.2619202484627497,'Vigo'),('1001299.txt',1.0000207533572343,'Argument'),('1001299.txt',-0.000011485714343061512,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament'),('1001299.txt',-0.000009267642892056547,'Voting'),('10013.txt',1,'On_What_Matters'),('1001300.txt',0.10675503140778735,'Finance'),('1001300.txt',0.3499270235323049,'Moral_responsibility'),('1001300.txt',0.5433179450599074,'Russian_Empire'),('1001301.txt',1.0000250903641215,'Agricultural_policy'),('1001301.txt',-0.000012524662176491676,'Livestock'),('1001301.txt',-0.000012565701945188958,'Sheep'),('1001304.txt',0.6660222734070311,'Copenhagen'),('1001304.txt',0.3339777265929691,'Nuclear_power'),('100131.txt',-0.000006763383888767603,'Insurance'),('100131.txt',1.000017731711605,'Real_property'),('100131.txt',-0.0000109683277165404,'Risk'),('100132.txt',1,'Terrorism'),('100134.txt',0.8393829252779177,'Machine'),('100134.txt',0.1606170747220822,'Public_opinion'),('100135.txt',1,'Agriculture'),('100136.txt',1,'Damages'),('100137.txt',0.6104989986034652,'Company'),('100137.txt',0.19712407387335754,'Professional_certification'),('100137.txt',0.19237692752317792,'Strike_action'),('100138.txt',1,'Fascism'),('100139.txt',1.000036610842409,'Defamation'),('100139.txt',-0.000036610842408529005,'Fascism'),('10014.txt',0.21595692262260482,'Euro'),('10014.txt',0.3678330799624407,'Financial_market'),('10014.txt',0.4162099974149543,'Social_democracy'),('100140.txt',1,'Contract'),('100141.txt',1,'Tariff'),('100142.txt',1.000014329740508,'Electric_power_transmission'),('100142.txt',-0.000014329740508625193,'Renewable_energy'),('100143.txt',0.0003368742612960594,'Amsterdam'),('100143.txt',0.6871667632414479,'Helsinki'),('100143.txt',0.31249636249725554,'Nice'),('100144.txt',1,'Paris'),('100145.txt',1,'Nuclear_physics'),('100146.txt',1,'War'),('100147.txt',0.07157519924260604,'A-not-A_question'),('100147.txt',0.5137024319077631,'Freedom_Party_of_Austria'),('100147.txt',0.4147223688496306,'Illegal_entry'),('10015.txt',1,'I_Have_Nothing'),('100150.txt',0.5556625826712824,'Agnes_Schierhuber'),('100150.txt',0.38095894142803954,'Agriculture'),('100150.txt',0.06337847590067784,'Tonne'),('100151.txt',1,'Asian_people'),('100152.txt',0.12421652746935655,'Coercion'),('100152.txt',0.4917575165333579,'European_Public_Prosecutor'),('100152.txt',0.09875698659850195,'Netherlands'),('100152.txt',0.28526896939878427,'Spain'),('100153.txt',1,'Tax'),('100154.txt',0.6740457375608215,'Conflict_resolution'),('100154.txt',0.10703207725619032,'Mediation'),('100154.txt',0.21892218518298798,'War'),('100155.txt',0.7447363041618017,'Fundamentalism'),('100155.txt',0.2552636958381976,'Punishment'),('100156.txt',0.3046348845059354,'John_Favour'),('100156.txt',0.1960707408212932,'Parliament'),('100156.txt',0.49929437467277143,'When_We_On'),('100157.txt',-0.0000051831916507855195,'Human_rights'),('100157.txt',1.0000051831916492,'Social_progress'),('100158.txt',1,'European_Arrest_Warrant'),('100159.txt',0.22211284090139635,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('100159.txt',0.7778871590986033,'Government_budget'),('10016.txt',1,'Labour_Party_(UK)'),('100160.txt',1.0000089801089527,'Copenhagen'),('100160.txt',-0.000008980108951936529,'Strasbourg'),('100161.txt',1,'Michel_Théato'),('100162.txt',0.602593946927707,'Freedom_of_speech'),('100162.txt',0.39740605307229376,'Spain'),('100163.txt',1,'Wealth'),('100165.txt',0.21014480641872504,'Competition'),('100165.txt',0.6459288724231487,'Liberalization'),('100165.txt',0.1439263211581268,'Rail_transport'),('100166.txt',1,'Palestinians'),('100167.txt',0.20153076101324982,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament'),('100167.txt',0.24511519297902462,'Jo_Leinen'),('100167.txt',0.39404214227698603,'The_Way_Ahead'),('100167.txt',0.15931190373073945,'Vigo'),('100168.txt',1.000042081379711,'Legal_opinion'),('100168.txt',-0.00004208137971142167,'Non-Inscrits'),('100169.txt',1,'European_Court_of_Human_Rights'),('10017.txt',0.40221541260806337,'Agriculture'),('10017.txt',0.5977845873919366,'Beef'),('100170.txt',0.7878146206680402,'Debate'),('100170.txt',0.21218537933196055,'Judicial_independence'),('100171.txt',1.0000082035182156,'Economics'),('100171.txt',-0.000008203518215894207,'Tax'),('100172.txt',1,'Game_theory'),('100173.txt',1,'Transport'),('100175.txt',0.9998911482528231,'Criminal_justice'),('100175.txt',0.00010885174717828367,'Torture'),('100176.txt',0.7758780432025826,'Independent_politician'),('100176.txt',0.007835870776033841,'Option_(finance)'),('100176.txt',0.21628608602138413,'Tariff'),('100177.txt',0.23192362573700018,'Censorship'),('100177.txt',0.05079294839230627,'Demonstration_(protest)'),('100177.txt',0.7172834258706939,'Information'),('100178.txt',0.2014203638375951,'Money_laundering'),('100178.txt',0.057724373670218876,'Primary_education'),('100178.txt',0.7408552624921856,'Sentence_(law)'),('100179.txt',1,'Separation_of_powers'),('10018.txt',0.29102244626694596,'El_Señor_Presidente'),('10018.txt',0.2636254456466087,'Switzerland'),('10018.txt',0.3950267198083665,'Transport'),('10018.txt',0.05032538827807852,'White_paper'),('100180.txt',0.41757933175572665,'Austrians'),('100180.txt',0.06920406494730831,'Denmark'),('100180.txt',0.20367381850964744,'Large_goods_vehicle'),('100180.txt',0.30954278478731745,'Transport'),('100181.txt',1,'Preventive_war'),('100182.txt',1,'Fraud'),('100183.txt',0.5441441230355726,'Austria_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest'),('100183.txt',0.12428904910661286,'Guilt_(emotion)'),('100183.txt',0.14628333282767364,'Independent_politician'),('100183.txt',0.1852834950301413,'Optimism'),('100184.txt',1,'Criminal_justice'),('100186.txt',1.0000099852464144,'European_Public_Prosecutor'),('100186.txt',-0.000006543405678800742,'Michel_Théato'),('100186.txt',-0.000003441840735247828,'Prosecutor'),('100187.txt',0.01660763329693539,'Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('100187.txt',0.03543988051950146,'Retirement'),('100187.txt',0.01733278370389185,'Salary'),('100187.txt',0.9306197024796716,'Wrestling'),('100188.txt',0.44376061720499516,'Patent'),('100188.txt',0.5562393827950048,'Product_(business)'),('100189.txt',0.10589049132859744,'Act_of_Congress'),('100189.txt',0.5347622345050375,'Advocacy_group'),('100189.txt',0.3593472741663651,'Cartel'),('10019.txt',-0.00001074197736994399,'BBC_News'),('10019.txt',-0.0000031806985814777064,'Debate'),('10019.txt',1.0000237903723923,'Majority'),('10019.txt',-0.00000986769644145547,'Voting'),('100190.txt',0.023629568018113226,'Health'),('100190.txt',0.000026668350348233554,'Public_health'),('100190.txt',0.9762985129952425,'Rationality'),('100190.txt',0.000045250636295209476,'Tobacco'),('100191.txt',0.5023291745379624,'Subsidiarity'),('100191.txt',0.4976708254620376,'Traffic'),('100193.txt',0.000001734164883864245,'Austrians'),('100193.txt',0.0001377063128283547,'Democracy'),('100193.txt',0.9997577050523702,'Fascism'),('100193.txt',0.00010285446991448802,'Nazism'),('100194.txt',0.00013323565725801008,'Agenda_21'),('100194.txt',0.00004515250650713408,'Environmental_protection'),('100194.txt',0.9406466371341619,'Sustainable_tourism'),('100194.txt',0.059174974702072926,'Tourism'),('100195.txt',0.5613867109345134,'European_Court_of_Human_Rights'),('100195.txt',0.09997454738473752,'European_Court_of_Justice'),('100195.txt',0.10594649253089584,'Fundamental_rights'),('100195.txt',0.23269224914985293,'Independent_politician'),('100196.txt',0.1898605246624436,'Air_pollution'),('100196.txt',0.6074421625615357,'Ecology'),('100196.txt',0.04071686653169011,'Pollution'),('100196.txt',0.16198044624433128,'Qualitative_research'),('100197.txt',-0.000008703856248058323,'Child_pornography'),('100197.txt',-0.00000566054408268134,'Law_enforcement'),('100197.txt',1.0000143644003316,'Strict_liability'),('100198.txt',0.10693273852184947,'Crime'),('100198.txt',0.06078990841149588,'Lawsuit'),('100198.txt',0.4243299552491492,'Prosecutor'),('100198.txt',0.40794739781750566,'Punishment'),('100199.txt',0.4417180550411882,'Amsterdam'),('100199.txt',0.2558018739263121,'Helsinki'),('100199.txt',0.30248007103250085,'The_Leftovers_(TV_series)'),('10020.txt',0.24702414806953685,'Language'),('10020.txt',0.2819729953208963,'Philosophy'),('10020.txt',0.4710028566095669,'Wisdom'),('10021.txt',1.0000054169195063,'Problem_solving'),('10021.txt',-0.000005416919504684024,'Transport'),('100211.txt',1,'Treaty'),('100212.txt',0.40368128309560203,'Ad_hoc'),('100212.txt',0.5963187169043995,'Climate_change'),('100213.txt',1.0000027938713991,'Blackmail'),('100213.txt',-0.000002793871397844261,'Cooperation'),('100214.txt',0.7144040613990879,'Supranational_union'),('100214.txt',0.28559593860091265,'Transparency_(behavior)'),('100215.txt',0.3457244048054819,'Fine_(penalty)'),('100215.txt',0.6542755951945183,'Misdemeanor'),('100216.txt',0.11657255880087909,'Collectivism'),('100216.txt',0.21529767381028603,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('100216.txt',0.40061012238066523,'Speech'),('100216.txt',0.2675196450081693,'Thought'),('100218.txt',0.48194852206774436,'Nuclear_power'),('100218.txt',0.5180514779322557,'Temelín'),('100219.txt',1,'Federation'),('10022.txt',1,'Culture'),('100220.txt',1,'Supranational_union'),('100221.txt',0.8221221874560253,'Democratic_deficit'),('100221.txt',0.17787781254397753,'Eastern_Europe'),('100223.txt',1,'European_integration'),('100225.txt',1,'Patent'),('100226.txt',1,'Austrian_Peoples_Party'),('100227.txt',1,'Cultural_policy'),('100228.txt',1,'Public_service'),('10023.txt',0.9711750470797904,'Demonstration_(protest)'),('10023.txt',0.02882495292020959,'Duty'),('100230.txt',1,'Coercion'),('100234.txt',0.2744060673772274,'Green_politics'),('100234.txt',0.7255939326227726,'Mr._President_(band)'),('100235.txt',-0.000004717043794843423,'Attention'),('100235.txt',1.000004717043795,'Speech'),('100236.txt',1,'Writing'),('100237.txt',0.45533172863859456,'Email'),('100237.txt',0.5446682713614054,'Internet_access'),('10024.txt',1,'Copyright_collective'),('100240.txt',0.815185459870493,'Democratic_deficit'),('100240.txt',0.18481454012950677,'Natural_and_legal_rights'),('100241.txt',0.3803634236276194,'Carlo_Fatuzzo'),('100241.txt',0.33457006421940144,'Culture'),('100241.txt',0.28506651215297896,'Switzerland'),('100242.txt',-0.00000972205857560905,'Green_politics'),('100242.txt',-0.0000056704626523388875,'Mr._President_(musical)'),('100242.txt',1.0000153925212292,'When_We_On'),('100244.txt',0.05337598206078039,'Ad_hoc'),('100244.txt',0.6436794671305612,'Appeal'),('100244.txt',0.30294455080865923,'Supermajority'),('100246.txt',1,'English_language'),('100248.txt',1,'Labour_economics'),('10025.txt',1,'Patience'),('100250.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('100251.txt',1,'Joking_Apart'),('100253.txt',1.000003053350136,'No_Exit'),('100253.txt',-0.000003053350135709691,'Separation_of_powers'),('100254.txt',0.6984794903337002,'Air_pollution'),('100254.txt',0.3015205096663021,'Pollution'),('100256.txt',1,'Child'),('100258.txt',0.697784857454963,'Deception'),('100258.txt',0.30221514254503734,'Legislature'),('100260.txt',-0.000011761311753793326,'Green_politics'),('100260.txt',1.0000117613117525,'Value-added_tax'),('100262.txt',0.29039142354209047,'Cultural_policy'),('100262.txt',0.7096085764579102,'Qualitative_research'),('100263.txt',0.390905989915001,'Ideology'),('100263.txt',0.6090940100849994,'Subsidy'),('100265.txt',1,'White_paper'),('100266.txt',0.18694229543093874,'European_integration'),('100266.txt',0.7018314487375261,'Nationalism'),('100266.txt',0.11122625583153462,'Political_union'),('100267.txt',1,'Subsidiarity'),('100269.txt',1,'Copyright'),('10027.txt',1,'Language'),('100270.txt',0.6628224153704981,'Convention_on_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_in_a_Transboundary_Context'),('100270.txt',0.33717758462950415,'Law'),('100271.txt',1,'Terrorism'),('100272.txt',0.2993275582735499,'Dickie_Goodman'),('100272.txt',0.7006724417264502,'English_language'),('100273.txt',1,'George_W._Bush'),('100274.txt',1,'MEDIA_Programme'),('100275.txt',1,'MEDIA_Programme'),('100278.txt',1,'Attention'),('100279.txt',-0.00004640584527976516,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs'),('100279.txt',1.00004640584528,'John_Favour'),('10028.txt',1,'Natural_and_legal_rights'),('100280.txt',0.23497383363971983,'Copyright'),('100280.txt',0.7650261663602808,'Culture'),('100281.txt',0.18936395492084618,'Patent'),('100281.txt',0.8106360450791525,'Thought'),('100282.txt',1,'Nationalism'),('100284.txt',0.8683588693721361,'Refugee'),('100284.txt',0.1316411306278649,'Right_of_asylum'),('100285.txt',0.44395530101279235,'Language'),('100285.txt',0.556044698987207,'Technology'),('100286.txt',1,'General_Agreement_on_Trade_in_Services'),('100288.txt',1,'Chichester'),('100289.txt',0.7631521749995746,'Parliamentary_system'),('100289.txt',0.2368478250004276,'Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe'),('10029.txt',-0.000013182157565132293,'Legislature'),('10029.txt',1.0000131821575653,'Separation_of_powers'),('10040.txt',1,'Hartmut_Nassauer'),('10041.txt',0.19857738236251266,'Alexander_Radwan'),('10041.txt',0.15280386307215635,'Bank_regulation'),('10041.txt',0.4166521609183997,'European_Peoples_Party_Group'),('10041.txt',0.2319665936469318,'Financial_market'),('100410.txt',0.2325999631992861,'El_Señor_Presidente'),('100410.txt',0.767400036800714,'Human_rights'),('1004101.txt',0.46398478487763595,'European_Peoples_Party'),('1004101.txt',0.42071704481837513,'Refugee'),('1004101.txt',0.11529817030398708,'Right_of_asylum'),('1004102.txt',0.48579389098770115,'Individualism'),('1004102.txt',0.2330738174264385,'Pascal_Lamy'),('1004102.txt',0.0054799991414354685,'Product_(business)'),('1004102.txt',0.275652292444424,'Workforce'),('1004103.txt',0.5832003265696535,'Dickie_Goodman'),('1004103.txt',0.41679967343034646,'Value-added_tax'),('1004104.txt',1.0000035445432573,'Nice'),('1004104.txt',-0.0000035445432587601305,'Pragmatism'),('1004106.txt',1,'Legal_personality'),('1004107.txt',0.6276073756176732,'Democracy'),('1004107.txt',0.37239262438232684,'Terrorism'),('1004109.txt',0.1885832466191427,'On_What_Matters'),('1004109.txt',0.53291893758879,'The_Distance_(song)'),('1004109.txt',0.2784978157920692,'This_Morning_(TV_programme)'),('100411.txt',0.6332726087730763,'Agriculture'),('100411.txt',0.313296847637002,'Austrian_Empire'),('100411.txt',0.004700182520714802,'Ecology'),('100411.txt',0.04873036106920686,'Manufacturing'),('1004110.txt',0.49098325278542515,'Christmas'),('1004110.txt',0.2209124646573331,'Moral_responsibility'),('1004110.txt',0.28810428255724135,'Political_union'),('1004111.txt',1.0000079060664693,'Bohunice_(Prachatice_District)'),('1004111.txt',-0.0000034730237944369574,'Chichester'),('1004111.txt',-0.0000044330426743022435,'Nuclear_power'),('1004112.txt',0.7354272270547045,'Incentive'),('1004112.txt',0.2645727729452944,'Mr._President_(board_game)'),('1004113.txt',1,'Tourism'),('1004114.txt',1,'Denmark'),('1004115.txt',-0.000008511431544000116,'Flood'),('1004115.txt',1.000008511431546,'Machine'),('1004116.txt',1,'Large_goods_vehicle'),('100412.txt',1,'Work_of_art'),('1004121.txt',0.35834893494883896,'Doha'),('1004121.txt',0.2803619218188694,'Hans-Peter_Martin'),('1004121.txt',0.3612891432322912,'Non-governmental_organization'),('1004122.txt',-0.000006457494819577223,'CE_marking'),('1004122.txt',1.0000064574948209,'Conformity'),('1004123.txt',1,'Balkans'),('1004124.txt',0.8364239108564163,'Further_education'),('1004124.txt',0.16357608914358399,'UMTS_(telecommunication)'),('1004125.txt',1,'Treaty'),('1004126.txt',-0.00002168591660079156,'Benchmarking'),('1004126.txt',-0.00005908447489005992,'Best_practice'),('1004126.txt',1.000080770391491,'Competitiveness'),('1004127.txt',0.3600605268553825,'Intermodal_freight_transport'),('1004127.txt',0.6399394731446175,'Trans-European_Networks'),('1004128.txt',0.7833391078212593,'Evidence_(law)'),('1004128.txt',0.2166608921787408,'Natural_and_legal_rights'),('1004129.txt',0.2235669359571023,'Digital_television'),('1004129.txt',0.44030207079311623,'Equity_(finance)'),('1004129.txt',0.003139165243995397,'Investment'),('1004129.txt',0.3329918280057859,'UMTS_(telecommunication)'),('100413.txt',1,'Old_age'),('1004130.txt',0.5982814420583529,'Authority'),('1004130.txt',0.21896882866896863,'Eurojust'),('1004130.txt',0.18274972927267946,'Luxembourg'),('1004131.txt',1,'Mail'),('1004132.txt',0.8450339661205484,'Dickie_Goodman'),('1004132.txt',0.15496603387945151,'Woman'),('1004133.txt',1,'Economic_globalization'),('1004134.txt',0.5201010883442666,'Committee'),('1004134.txt',0.47989891165573334,'Research'),('1004135.txt',1,'Croatia'),('1004137.txt',1.000003728236054,'CE_marking'),('1004137.txt',-0.0000032360939255547076,'Consumer'),('1004137.txt',-0.0000004921421271030293,'Test_(assessment)'),('1004138.txt',0.31418213598855743,'Culture'),('1004138.txt',0.4297645134225655,'Judgment_(law)'),('1004138.txt',0.25605335058887707,'Subsidiarity'),('1004139.txt',1,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union'),('100414.txt',0.23933532196542218,'Georg_Jarzembowski'),('100414.txt',0.7606646780345795,'Modus_operandi'),('1004140.txt',1.0000690506843495,'European_Parliament'),('1004140.txt',-0.000052608386405789874,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets'),('1004140.txt',-0.000016442297943812443,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004141.txt',0.3699631108418874,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004141.txt',0.6300368891581127,'Parliament'),('1004142.txt',0.3186626122058451,'Fiscal_policy'),('1004142.txt',0.16550838218569824,'Labour_law'),('1004142.txt',0.5158290056084565,'Working_time'),('1004143.txt',0.4495389716412382,'Committee'),('1004143.txt',0.5504610283587619,'Voting'),('1004144.txt',1,'E-commerce'),('1004146.txt',1,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council'),('1004148.txt',-0.000016969544621048126,'Committee'),('1004148.txt',1.0000718090065548,'National_Council_(Austria)'),('1004148.txt',-0.000054839461933879265,'Reading_(legislature)'),('1004149.txt',1,'Agriculture'),('100415.txt',1,'Pierre_Jonckheer'),('1004150.txt',0.7223853141055716,'Brussels'),('1004150.txt',0.27761468589442795,'Mr._President_(musical)'),('1004151.txt',1,'Protein'),('1004152.txt',1,'This_Morning_(TV_programme)'),('1004153.txt',0.6746213351138373,'Green_paper'),('1004153.txt',0.32537866488616274,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('1004154.txt',1,'Point_of_view_(philosophy)'),('1004155.txt',1,'Traffic_collision'),('1004157.txt',1,'Sympathy'),('1004158.txt',0.6488888699155501,'Blackmail'),('1004158.txt',0.35111113008445044,'Convention_on_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_in_a_Transboundary_Context'),('1004159.txt',1,'NATO'),('100416.txt',0.4277145945112508,'European_Arrest_Warrant'),('100416.txt',0.1563475990984103,'Pillarisation'),('100416.txt',0.41593780639033817,'Terrorism'),('1004160.txt',1,'Schengen_Area'),('1004161.txt',0.35847558175848293,'China'),('1004161.txt',0.6415244182415176,'International_trade'),('1004162.txt',-0.00011241909334757442,'Public_health'),('1004162.txt',1.0002547189829665,'United_Nations'),('1004162.txt',-0.00014229988961927048,'United_Nations_Security_Council'),('1004163.txt',0.7238927986444603,'Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights'),('1004163.txt',0.27610720135553873,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights'),('1004164.txt',1,'European_Peoples_Party'),('1004165.txt',1,'Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises'),('1004166.txt',-0.000010915941348534161,'Fascism'),('1004166.txt',1.0000109159413497,'Strict_liability'),('1004168.txt',0.47409112163156863,'Labour_economics'),('1004168.txt',0.5259088783684311,'Primary_education'),('1004169.txt',1,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('100417.txt',0.1721530397220165,'Farmer'),('100417.txt',0.7030809003660157,'Nordic_countries'),('100417.txt',0.12476605991196768,'Rebellion'),('1004170.txt',-0.00005252123719530244,'Lawyer'),('1004170.txt',1.000052521237195,'Nicaragua'),('1004171.txt',0.34456600783048047,'Labour_economics'),('1004171.txt',0.38252657069070284,'Professional_certification'),('1004171.txt',0.2729074214788157,'Unemployment'),('1004173.txt',0.6116559468023286,'Eurodac'),('1004173.txt',0.3846960053074334,'John_Favour'),('1004173.txt',0.0012759153608600388,'Parliament'),('1004173.txt',0.0023721325293774957,'The_Early_Show'),('1004174.txt',1,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1004175.txt',0.6343916890611146,'Commonwealth_of_Independent_States'),('1004175.txt',0.3656083109388843,'Nuclear_power'),('1004176.txt',0.4087550647664063,'Agriculture'),('1004176.txt',0.5912449352335947,'Climate'),('1004177.txt',0.3272668646147422,'Great_Expectations'),('1004177.txt',0.6727331353852588,'Portugal'),('1004178.txt',0.00006766469586804905,'Austrian_Peoples_Party'),('1004178.txt',0.9999323353041316,'Faith'),('1004179.txt',0.6341841817117856,'Joint_Commission'),('1004179.txt',0.36581581828821497,'Viviane_Reding'),('100418.txt',0.33518552170642896,'Mr._President_(title)'),('100418.txt',0.6648144782935711,'Slovakia'),('1004180.txt',1,'Financial_instrument'),('1004181.txt',1,'Agriculture'),('1004182.txt',0.19307519339858958,'E-commerce'),('1004182.txt',0.27746966357098657,'Further_education'),('1004182.txt',0.0842168324262932,'United_Kingdom'),('1004182.txt',0.44523831060413055,'Volunteering'),('1004183.txt',0.4827859513301197,'Communication'),('1004183.txt',0.18896538337551347,'Democracy'),('1004183.txt',0.3282486652943672,'Email'),('1004184.txt',0.6705150100324901,'Analysis'),('1004184.txt',0.3294849899675099,'Conversation'),('1004185.txt',1,'Balkans'),('1004187.txt',0.836490033422283,'Social_justice'),('1004187.txt',0.16350996657771813,'Writing'),('1004188.txt',0.1687940868900337,'Basel_II'),('1004188.txt',0.5668043190907861,'Credit_risk'),('1004188.txt',0.2644015940191813,'Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises'),('100419.txt',0.3393314371989069,'Choice'),('100419.txt',0.20000506404748156,'Problem_solving'),('100419.txt',0.4606634987536115,'Youth'),('1004190.txt',1,'Subsidiarity'),('1004192.txt',1,'Eurojust'),('1004193.txt',0.5674603614840289,'Consumer'),('1004193.txt',0.14514355997685294,'Environmental_protection'),('1004193.txt',0.28739607853911764,'Philosophy'),('1004194.txt',0.392629640234428,'European_Union'),('1004194.txt',0.33366403073898665,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004194.txt',0.27370632902658526,'Payment'),('1004195.txt',0.7412611446368409,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1004195.txt',0.25873885536316005,'Harmonized_System'),('1004196.txt',1.000007594521403,'Code_of_conduct'),('1004196.txt',-0.000007594521405082701,'United_Nations_Security_Council'),('1004197.txt',1,'Aviation'),('1004198.txt',1,'Political_party'),('10042.txt',1,'Environmental_liability_directive'),('100420.txt',1,'Mr._President_(musical)'),('1004200.txt',0.5471788502727243,'Alcohol'),('1004200.txt',0.4528211497272757,'Manufacturing'),('1004201.txt',1,'Rail_transport'),('1004202.txt',-0.000006456442534884144,'Farmer'),('1004202.txt',-0.0000033452895430878808,'Management'),('1004202.txt',1.0000098017320775,'Organization'),('1004203.txt',1,'Behavior'),('1004206.txt',-0.000019042608983967995,'European_Commissioner'),('1004206.txt',-0.000006998491592456067,'European_Union_legislative_procedure'),('1004206.txt',1.000026041100576,'Lisbon_Strategy'),('1004207.txt',1,'Insurance'),('1004208.txt',0.8070323010716312,'BBC_News'),('1004208.txt',0.19296769892836874,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('1004209.txt',0.8830206673852428,'Green_paper'),('1004209.txt',0.11697933261475697,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('100421.txt',1,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament'),('1004210.txt',0.49999999999999917,'Lawyer'),('1004210.txt',0.5000000000000008,'Nicaragua'),('1004211.txt',0.4250128675319615,'Labour_economics'),('1004211.txt',0.13175112888959806,'Language'),('1004211.txt',0.443236003578441,'Youth'),('1004212.txt',0.1648015844069101,'Construction'),('1004212.txt',0.2823413822246327,'Family'),('1004212.txt',0.5528570333684574,'Peace'),('1004213.txt',-0.0000034280708286245334,'Helsinki'),('1004213.txt',1.00000342807083,'Privatization'),('1004214.txt',1,'Security_(finance)'),('1004215.txt',1,'Cosmetics'),('1004216.txt',1,'All_in_the_Same_Boat'),('1004218.txt',1,'May_Day'),('1004219.txt',0.42115151449535576,'Advertising'),('1004219.txt',0.13326450848668128,'Alcohol'),('1004219.txt',0.4455839770179634,'Problem_solving'),('100422.txt',1,'Right_of_asylum'),('1004220.txt',1.000078513309667,'Viviane_Reding'),('1004220.txt',-0.0000785133096671312,'Youth'),('1004221.txt',1,'Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises'),('1004222.txt',0.16641723430498237,'Brussels'),('1004222.txt',0.1091234727314575,'Police'),('1004222.txt',0.7244592929635605,'Security'),('1004223.txt',0.3655631199945791,'Emotion'),('1004223.txt',0.03684665042725961,'Security'),('1004223.txt',0.5975902295781617,'Terrorism'),('1004224.txt',0.9950359362976061,'Coercion'),('1004224.txt',0.004964063702394016,'Terrorism'),('1004225.txt',0.18475082992146186,'Damages'),('1004225.txt',0.3767737116155178,'Export'),('1004225.txt',0.2648231841503641,'Manufacturing'),('1004225.txt',0.17365227431265534,'Reading_(legislature)'),('1004226.txt',0.6822766775767842,'Conformity'),('1004226.txt',0.3177233224232159,'Consumer_protection'),('1004227.txt',0.49063045097172603,'Non-governmental_organization'),('1004227.txt',0.5093695490282737,'Terrorism'),('1004228.txt',1,'Refugee'),('1004229.txt',0.5340487158253644,'Europe'),('1004229.txt',0.4659512841746356,'Mr._President_(band)'),('100423.txt',1,'Harmonized_System'),('1004230.txt',0.5088403594933412,'Committee'),('1004230.txt',0.0004612896576767968,'European_Court_of_Justice'),('1004230.txt',0.0002595885119899814,'Freedom_of_speech'),('1004230.txt',0.49043876233699224,'United_States_House_Committee_on_Agriculture'),('1004231.txt',1.0000494134721827,'Green_paper'),('1004231.txt',-0.000049413472182924524,'History_of_the_European_Union'),('1004232.txt',0.102584498283202,'General_Agreement_on_Trade_in_Services'),('1004232.txt',0.7948310034335959,'Negotiation'),('1004232.txt',0.102584498283202,'Tertiary_sector_of_the_economy'),('1004233.txt',0.24646852904758018,'Illegal_immigration'),('1004233.txt',0.14107239941648125,'Right_of_asylum'),('1004233.txt',0.6124590715359368,'Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe'),('1004234.txt',1,'Subsidiarity'),('1004235.txt',1,'World_Trade_Organization'),('1004236.txt',1,'Public_opinion'),('1004237.txt',0.8227148025713109,'Christmas_and_holiday_season'),('1004237.txt',0.1772851974286891,'President_of_France'),('1004238.txt',0.21108001850533528,'Censorship'),('1004238.txt',0.7873958823545707,'Export'),('1004238.txt',0.0003353720071114932,'Federation'),('1004238.txt',0.0011887271329823767,'Product_(business)'),('1004239.txt',1.000007651178587,'Guilt_(emotion)'),('1004239.txt',-0.000002587067834947442,'Liberty'),('1004239.txt',-0.0000050641107512913455,'Parliament'),('100424.txt',0.6454500271321713,'Free_will'),('100424.txt',0.21084336277999624,'Mr._President_(title)'),('100424.txt',0.14370661008783212,'Wisdom'),('1004241.txt',0.19768454357461923,'Capital_punishment'),('1004241.txt',0.18950834559516894,'Dickie_Goodman'),('1004241.txt',0.16771079900806105,'Individualism'),('1004241.txt',0.44509631182215076,'Reason'),('1004242.txt',1.0000069702674355,'Car'),('1004242.txt',-0.000006970267437211996,'Craft'),('1004243.txt',1,'Netherlands'),('1004244.txt',1,'Social_system'),('1004245.txt',1,'Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development'),('1004246.txt',0.9971576778393955,'European_Central_Bank'),('1004246.txt',0.002842322160603637,'Inflation'),('1004247.txt',0.0878642684556261,'Demography'),('1004247.txt',0.34392067777828783,'Pension'),('1004247.txt',0.5682150537660854,'Pillarisation'),('1004248.txt',0.7875500409139505,'Insolvency'),('1004248.txt',0.2124499590860489,'Security_(finance)'),('1004249.txt',0.6803979395984826,'Patentability'),('1004249.txt',0.31960206040151745,'Technology'),('100425.txt',1.0000030373040376,'Corporate_tax'),('100425.txt',-0.0000030373040374904764,'Pension'),('1004250.txt',0.13535962315881694,'Comitology'),('1004250.txt',0.5344495259763036,'Constitution'),('1004250.txt',0.22420390965878312,'Law'),('1004250.txt',0.10598694120609665,'Legislature'),('1004251.txt',0.5428677540266925,'Electric_power_transmission'),('1004251.txt',0.4571322459733077,'Renewable_energy'),('1004252.txt',0.8424048565414366,'BBC_News'),('1004252.txt',0.15759514345856354,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('1004253.txt',1,'Democracy'),('1004254.txt',0.38754344320603934,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004254.txt',0.6124565567939607,'Prime_Ministers_Questions'),('1004255.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004256.txt',0.39512568097531503,'Pollution'),('1004256.txt',0.6048743190246832,'Pragmatism'),('1004259.txt',1,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('100426.txt',0.31486716186136493,'European_Democrats'),('100426.txt',0.6851328381386348,'Green_politics'),('1004260.txt',1,'European_Peoples_Party_Group'),('1004261.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004262.txt',1,'Mergers_and_acquisitions'),('1004263.txt',0.8063061748204754,'Equity_(finance)'),('1004263.txt',0.19369382517952416,'Tourism'),('1004264.txt',-0.000014674726632584776,'Mr._President_(musical)'),('1004264.txt',1.0000146747266319,'Regulation'),('1004265.txt',0.5787373784818445,'Child'),('1004265.txt',0.42126262151815536,'Subsidiarity'),('1004267.txt',0.6594668527890333,'Belgium'),('1004267.txt',0.0019279507889214652,'El_Señor_Presidente'),('1004267.txt',0.3386051964220453,'France'),('1004268.txt',-0.00004309559019447362,'El_Señor_Presidente'),('1004268.txt',0.9501344492104911,'European_Commissioner'),('1004268.txt',0.049622890104659714,'Natural_and_legal_rights'),('1004268.txt',0.00028575627504378237,'Treaty'),('1004269.txt',0.23616672548738885,'Best_practice'),('1004269.txt',0.3559710567897796,'Old_age'),('1004269.txt',0.4078622177228315,'Symbol'),('100427.txt',1,'Terrorism'),('1004270.txt',0.4571271222095615,'Amsterdam_Treaty'),('1004270.txt',0.2232454030085288,'Constitution'),('1004270.txt',0.15358009951013385,'Constitution_of_Ireland'),('1004270.txt',0.1660473752717757,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights'),('1004271.txt',-0.000012885717912169668,'Analysis'),('1004271.txt',1.0000262700685583,'Convention_(norm)'),('1004271.txt',-0.00001338435064504202,'Framework_decision'),('1004273.txt',1,'Subsidiarity'),('1004274.txt',0.3912401421555943,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1004274.txt',0.6087598578444067,'Yugoslavia'),('1004276.txt',1,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('1004278.txt',0.7887079387407768,'Bill_(law)'),('1004278.txt',0.211292061259222,'Voting'),('1004279.txt',1,'Labour_economics'),('1004280.txt',1,'Child_pornography'),('1004281.txt',1,'Punishment'),('1004282.txt',-0.0000701899936916548,'Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('1004282.txt',1.0000701899936915,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004283.txt',0.2087054839380245,'Committee'),('1004283.txt',0.7912945160619744,'Reading_(legislature)'),('1004284.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004285.txt',0.16403698754351825,'Benchmarking'),('1004285.txt',0.60214893431239,'Best_practice'),('1004285.txt',0.1469560704970385,'Directive_(European_Union)'),('1004285.txt',0.08685800764705327,'Institutions_of_the_European_Union'),('1004286.txt',1,'Poverty'),('1004287.txt',0.3255080055919441,'Competition'),('1004287.txt',0.503858263401716,'License'),('1004287.txt',0.17063373100633997,'Market_liquidity'),('1004288.txt',1,'European_Commissioner'),('1004290.txt',0.2707060002269007,'Agenda_2000'),('1004290.txt',0.6224117090345175,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets'),('1004290.txt',0.10688229073858146,'Teleology'),('1004291.txt',1,'Agriculture'),('1004292.txt',1,'Police'),('1004293.txt',1,'Incentive'),('1004294.txt',0.5456007455292987,'Credit_rating_agency'),('1004294.txt',0.3077355212541436,'Equity_(finance)'),('1004294.txt',0.14666373321655846,'Loan'),('1004295.txt',0.0032973205543542386,'European_Parliament'),('1004295.txt',0.05756702477366856,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004295.txt',0.9391356546719772,'Point_of_order'),('1004297.txt',1,'Portugal'),('1004298.txt',0.14458972969150702,'Insurance'),('1004298.txt',0.06405495355102155,'September_11_attacks'),('1004298.txt',0.49779979630441795,'Strike_action'),('1004298.txt',0.293555520453051,'Terrorism'),('10043.txt',1,'Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights'),('100430.txt',0.9999934591779169,'Prostitution'),('100430.txt',-0.0000026005198035741683,'Transit_Agreement_(1972)'),('100430.txt',0.000009141341884875381,'Transport'),('1004301.txt',0.9550123462901335,'BBC_News'),('1004301.txt',0.04498765370986633,'Communication'),('1004302.txt',0.6314068277253163,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union'),('1004302.txt',0.368593172274683,'Human_rights'),('1004303.txt',-0.00004306254884739347,'Non-governmental_organization'),('1004303.txt',1.0000430625488472,'War'),('1004304.txt',0.7831868562287745,'Road'),('1004304.txt',0.2168131437712254,'Social_system'),('1004305.txt',0.2981575853472066,'Non-governmental_organization'),('1004305.txt',0.5486197069524924,'Public_health'),('1004305.txt',0.15322270770030053,'Sustainable_development'),('1004306.txt',0.18668438298475995,'Labour_Party_(UK)'),('1004306.txt',0.09699847175244698,'Social_justice'),('1004306.txt',0.7163171452627927,'UMTS_(telecommunication)'),('1004307.txt',-0.00003961169288226257,'Agriculture'),('1004307.txt',1.0000396116928827,'Renewable_energy'),('1004308.txt',0.5112665554707997,'Eurozone'),('1004308.txt',0.405281559249413,'Fiscal_policy'),('1004308.txt',0.08345188527978864,'Greece'),('1004310.txt',1,'Old_age'),('1004311.txt',1,'Socialism'),('1004312.txt',0.5620007387498196,'Directive_(European_Union)'),('1004312.txt',0.4379992612501805,'Institutions_of_the_European_Union'),('1004313.txt',0.37066280907922183,'Crime'),('1004313.txt',0.6293371909207784,'Deportation'),('1004314.txt',1,'Yugoslavia'),('1004316.txt',0.1374164626261519,'Eurozone'),('1004316.txt',0.12342341596847198,'Euro_coins'),('1004316.txt',0.2808484800278614,'Financial_market'),('1004316.txt',0.4583116413775133,'Karla_Peijs'),('1004317.txt',0.36130409080040676,'Labour_law'),('1004317.txt',0.48676222527529445,'Pension'),('1004317.txt',0.15193368392429743,'Tax'),('1004318.txt',1,'Epizootic'),('1004319.txt',1,'Malta'),('1004320.txt',0.202477374572623,'Benchmarking'),('1004320.txt',0.006717727996477379,'Budget_of_the_European_Union'),('1004320.txt',0.21476382406690275,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004320.txt',0.5760410733639966,'Sustainable_development'),('1004321.txt',1,'Venture_capital'),('1004322.txt',0.6582103412886339,'Slovakia'),('1004322.txt',0.34178965871136613,'Surveillance'),('1004323.txt',0.0009937012869380157,'Denmark'),('1004323.txt',0.7974459974125169,'Mr._President_(board_game)'),('1004323.txt',0.2015603013005451,'Strategy'),('1004324.txt',0.7188827281401503,'Europol'),('1004324.txt',0.28111727185984975,'Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('1004325.txt',1.000000694915232,'Majority'),('1004325.txt',-0.0000006949152312587075,'Referendum'),('1004326.txt',0.3456252595751072,'Damages'),('1004326.txt',0.6543747404248917,'Legal_liability'),('1004327.txt',1,'Committee'),('1004328.txt',0.6525672444340517,'Road_traffic_safety'),('1004328.txt',0.34743275556594844,'Transport'),('1004329.txt',-0.0000020565778538769653,'Agriculture'),('1004329.txt',-0.000002050942531386565,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('1004329.txt',-0.00000045809168424892166,'Protein'),('1004329.txt',1.000004565612071,'Supply_and_demand'),('100433.txt',1,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('1004330.txt',0.31161687088973,'Act_of_Parliament'),('1004330.txt',0.6883831291102681,'Environmental_protection'),('1004331.txt',1,'Further_education'),('1004332.txt',-0.000003860456077183087,'Matter_(philosophy)'),('1004332.txt',1.00000386045608,'Self-esteem'),('1004333.txt',0.25578988462648644,'Border'),('1004333.txt',0.744210115373515,'Surveillance'),('1004334.txt',0.6513774915573508,'Human_migration'),('1004334.txt',0.34862250844264886,'Yugoslavia'),('1004335.txt',1,'Basel_problem'),('1004336.txt',1,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004338.txt',1,'Socialism'),('1004339.txt',0.4184107934828899,'Competitiveness'),('1004339.txt',0.40496838474940705,'Structural_Funds_and_Cohesion_Fund'),('1004339.txt',0.176620821767703,'Trans-European_Networks'),('100434.txt',1.0000054979528432,'Animal_testing'),('100434.txt',-0.0000034717221555176067,'Cosmetics'),('100434.txt',-0.0000020262306896014667,'Science'),('1004340.txt',0.13288221458857832,'Deportation'),('1004340.txt',0.22192379517526822,'Evidence_(law)'),('1004340.txt',0.6451939902361546,'Self-employment'),('1004341.txt',1,'Test_(assessment)'),('1004343.txt',1.0000156589720535,'Debate'),('1004343.txt',-0.00001565897205451514,'European_Central_Bank'),('1004344.txt',0.43107183633053586,'Pension'),('1004344.txt',0.5689281636694642,'Social_security'),('1004345.txt',0.21592460795437277,'Child'),('1004345.txt',0.11880328335578416,'French_ship_Assuré_(1667)'),('1004345.txt',0.1639711561374065,'Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('1004345.txt',0.5013009525524361,'Transposition_(law)'),('1004347.txt',-0.000001889879873536764,'Doha'),('1004347.txt',1.0000018898798728,'Tertiary_sector_of_the_economy'),('1004349.txt',0.523759340319881,'European_Peoples_Party'),('1004349.txt',0.476240659680119,'Reading_(legislature)'),('100435.txt',0.5207488304734202,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('100435.txt',0.4792511695265797,'Hungary'),('1004351.txt',0.521348604691225,'Competition'),('1004351.txt',0.15958261449461134,'Innovation'),('1004351.txt',0.09291680329791284,'Internet_access'),('1004351.txt',0.2261519775162492,'Technology'),('1004352.txt',0.8079801337650874,'Duty'),('1004352.txt',0.19201986623491052,'United_Nations_Security_Council'),('1004353.txt',0.30384188650092697,'Illegal_immigration'),('1004353.txt',0.31648904552797713,'Labour_economics'),('1004353.txt',0.316806656563259,'Refugee'),('1004353.txt',0.06286241140783617,'Right_of_asylum'),('1004355.txt',0.4861571912009065,'Agriculture'),('1004355.txt',0.07767560075227292,'Forestry'),('1004355.txt',0.43616720804682035,'Rapporteur'),('1004356.txt',0.2585005475243516,'A-not-A_question'),('1004356.txt',0.6265525993262998,'House_of_Habsburg'),('1004356.txt',0.11494685314934878,'National_Assembly_(France)'),('1004357.txt',0.6634984949604557,'European_Peoples_Party'),('1004357.txt',0.3365015050395445,'Family'),('1004358.txt',1.0000051816478708,'Because_We_Want_To'),('1004358.txt',-0.0000028864409244630723,'Business'),('1004358.txt',-0.0000022952069457392986,'Rapporteur'),('1004359.txt',0.9599038372028993,'Budget_of_the_European_Union'),('1004359.txt',0.040096162797100675,'Employment'),('100436.txt',0.32791020993474473,'China'),('100436.txt',0.672089790065253,'Greenhouse_gas'),('1004360.txt',0.18715976182466457,'MEDIA_Programme'),('1004360.txt',0.2591382510063305,'Mr._President_(musical)'),('1004360.txt',0.5537019871690043,'World_Trade_Organization'),('1004361.txt',1,'Farce'),('1004362.txt',0.16292249606937262,'Balanced_budget'),('1004362.txt',0.33711665735336704,'Sustainability'),('1004362.txt',0.4999608465772602,'Sweden'),('1004363.txt',1,'Family'),('1004364.txt',0.1384265148030092,'Drug'),('1004364.txt',0.5700084931655766,'Traffic_collision'),('1004364.txt',0.29156499203141484,'Youth'),('1004366.txt',1,'Balkans'),('1004367.txt',1,'Dublin_Regulation'),('1004368.txt',0.47686852286647924,'Committee'),('1004368.txt',0.0009845589927909594,'European_Union_legislative_procedure'),('1004368.txt',0.2696296724098354,'Resolution_(law)'),('1004368.txt',0.2525172457308941,'United_States_House_Committee_on_Agriculture'),('1004369.txt',1,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('100437.txt',0.000468937933226625,'El_Señor_Presidente'),('100437.txt',0.44388433207420624,'Professional_certification'),('100437.txt',0.5556467299925673,'Recruitment'),('1004370.txt',0.28384962681305226,'Bachelors_degree'),('1004370.txt',0.7161503731869496,'Business'),('1004371.txt',1,'European_Economic_and_Social_Committee'),('1004372.txt',-0.0000017624796182405265,'Consumer_protection'),('1004372.txt',1.000004114088554,'Gross_national_product'),('1004372.txt',-0.000002351608935403611,'Patentability'),('1004373.txt',1,'Freedom_Party_of_Austria'),('1004374.txt',0.23486762650829907,'Competition_law'),('1004374.txt',0.7651323734917023,'Cultural_area'),('1004375.txt',1,'Temelín'),('1004376.txt',1.000232980224969,'Dickie_Goodman'),('1004376.txt',-0.00023298022496890674,'Engineering'),('1004377.txt',0.1364603468725473,'Agenda_2000'),('1004377.txt',0.3816309043586578,'Agricultural_policy'),('1004377.txt',0.48190874876879475,'Agriculture'),('1004379.txt',0.45797619750781254,'Geneva_Conventions'),('1004379.txt',0.26827680652675745,'Labour_economics'),('1004379.txt',0.2737469959654299,'Refugee'),('100438.txt',-0.000007553115053577293,'Freedom_of_speech'),('100438.txt',-0.000019594955518413496,'Refugee'),('100438.txt',-0.000010441964415964188,'Sympathy'),('100438.txt',1.0000375900349878,'The_Early_Show'),('1004380.txt',1,'Financial_instrument'),('1004382.txt',1,'Prostitution'),('1004383.txt',-0.000010623405321386934,'Chairman-in-Office'),('1004383.txt',1.000035148442282,'European_Council'),('1004383.txt',-0.000024525036961013473,'Head_of_government'),('1004384.txt',0.15966198779014468,'Bill_(law)'),('1004384.txt',0.8403380122098554,'Constitutional_amendment'),('1004385.txt',1,'Nuclear_power'),('1004386.txt',0.5212823331466704,'History_of_the_European_Union'),('1004386.txt',0.026020145762074526,'International_Atomic_Energy_Agency'),('1004386.txt',0.30288951233696654,'Nuclear_power'),('1004386.txt',0.1498080087542881,'Treaty'),('1004387.txt',-0.000006464393707582758,'Game_theory'),('1004387.txt',1.0000176743669615,'Green_politics'),('1004387.txt',-0.000005241101383042334,'Social_democracy'),('1004387.txt',-0.00000596887186950858,'Treaty'),('1004388.txt',1,'Advocacy'),('1004389.txt',0.5735381929776148,'Regulation'),('1004389.txt',0.4264618070223852,'Repeal'),('100439.txt',1,'Eastern_Europe'),('1004390.txt',-0.00001444361575071872,'Dickie_Goodman'),('1004390.txt',-0.000006233565866758935,'International_Atomic_Energy_Agency'),('1004390.txt',1.0000206771816171,'Nuclear_safety_and_security'),('1004391.txt',0.5435174586742547,'Chairman-in-Office'),('1004391.txt',0.18583435142994384,'Euro'),('1004391.txt',0.2706481898958016,'Mr._President_(musical)'),('1004393.txt',0.7543862447246159,'Party_of_European_Socialists'),('1004393.txt',0.24561375527538407,'Vienna'),('1004394.txt',-0.000004203504692925942,'Procedural_law'),('1004394.txt',-0.000011936209918471412,'Sense'),('1004394.txt',1.0000161397146121,'Speech'),('1004395.txt',0.002021825746069531,'European_Council'),('1004395.txt',0.5690294253834995,'European_Union'),('1004395.txt',0.29068114389785876,'Illegal_immigration'),('1004395.txt',0.13826760497257218,'Turkey'),('1004396.txt',1,'Nuclear_power'),('1004397.txt',1,'United_States'),('1004399.txt',1,'Rail_transport'),('10044.txt',0.4860511783502007,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('10044.txt',0.44586870782420346,'Matter_(philosophy)'),('10044.txt',0.0680801138255955,'May_Day'),('1004400.txt',-0.000009307595630187512,'Budget'),('1004400.txt',1.0000093075956298,'Lisbon_Strategy'),('1004402.txt',0.17074754786694726,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council'),('1004402.txt',0.8292524521330517,'Sustainability'),('1004404.txt',1.0000014490115454,'Kosovo'),('1004404.txt',-0.0000014490115469871572,'President_of_the_United_States'),('1004405.txt',1,'Engineering'),('1004406.txt',0.21876970146680333,'All_in_the_Same_Boat'),('1004406.txt',0.7812302985331956,'Innovation'),('1004407.txt',0.12014166394305668,'Christmas'),('1004407.txt',0.12933843956672217,'Inflation'),('1004407.txt',0.5544985792497404,'Logical_consequence'),('1004407.txt',0.19602131724048108,'Tourism'),('1004408.txt',1,'Joint_Commission'),('1004409.txt',1,'Business'),('100441.txt',0.63337962556271,'Best_practice'),('100441.txt',0.3666203744372902,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004410.txt',0.8878255050068906,'House_of_Habsburg'),('1004410.txt',0.11217449499310933,'Speech'),('1004412.txt',0.40012548285227323,'Shareholder'),('1004412.txt',0.5998745171477267,'Stock_market'),('1004413.txt',1,'Right_of_asylum'),('1004414.txt',0.35232849624265217,'Austrian_Peoples_Party'),('1004414.txt',0.6475327124803592,'Market_economy'),('1004414.txt',0.0001387912769882722,'Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises'),('1004415.txt',1,'Authority'),('1004417.txt',1,'Aesthetics'),('1004418.txt',1,'Fraud'),('1004419.txt',1,'Gross_national_product'),('100442.txt',0.012011777772391102,'Michel_Théato'),('100442.txt',0.5843065354952107,'Money_laundering'),('100442.txt',0.40368168673239985,'Risk'),('1004420.txt',1,'Georg_Jarzembowski'),('1004422.txt',1.0000028160998853,'I_Have_Nothing'),('1004422.txt',-0.0000028160998863082355,'Technology'),('1004425.txt',0.7955530932528805,'Basel_II'),('1004425.txt',0.20444690674711774,'Legal_personality'),('1004426.txt',1,'European_Court_of_Human_Rights'),('1004427.txt',0.18397401813104874,'Hans-Peter_Martin'),('1004427.txt',0.8160259818689517,'Research'),('1004428.txt',0.19966443043876922,'Law'),('1004428.txt',0.680178126321162,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004428.txt',0.12015744324006893,'Person'),('1004429.txt',0.1463729287949911,'Aviation'),('1004429.txt',0.552434378696794,'Investment'),('1004429.txt',0.30119269250821495,'Reconstruction_Era'),('100443.txt',1,'Terrorism'),('1004430.txt',1,'Strategy'),('1004431.txt',0.3314520702922159,'Interest'),('1004431.txt',0.6685479297077843,'Management'),('1004433.txt',1,'The_Motions_(Matthew_West_song)'),('1004434.txt',0.43168870593127745,'Kosovo'),('1004434.txt',0.5683112940687226,'Turkey'),('1004435.txt',1,'Directive_(European_Union)'),('1004436.txt',0.22014594947940594,'Pascal_Lamy'),('1004436.txt',0.3066186943415123,'Public_health'),('1004436.txt',0.42993763308656824,'The_Pleased'),('1004436.txt',0.04329772309251414,'World_Trade_Organization'),('1004437.txt',1.000002150591381,'Because_We_Want_To'),('1004437.txt',-0.0000021505913827622687,'Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe'),('1004438.txt',1,'President_of_France'),('1004439.txt',0.4763223122617069,'Macau'),('1004439.txt',0.5236776877382934,'Refugee'),('100444.txt',0.6130959674206368,'Credit_risk'),('100444.txt',0.3869040325793639,'Market_liquidity'),('1004440.txt',-0.0000018006143174308212,'Constitution'),('1004440.txt',1.0000048417198037,'Referendum'),('1004440.txt',-0.0000030411054879889886,'Subsidiarity'),('1004441.txt',1,'Police'),('1004442.txt',0.5643170658402364,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004442.txt',0.4356829341597637,'Terrorism'),('1004443.txt',0.5285512682588083,'Constitution_of_Ireland'),('1004443.txt',0.47144873174119156,'President_of_France'),('1004445.txt',1,'Market_liquidity'),('1004446.txt',0.363341727706661,'E-commerce'),('1004446.txt',0.4899025629280518,'English_relative_clauses'),('1004446.txt',0.14675570936528642,'The_Distance_(song)'),('1004447.txt',1,'Nazism'),('1004448.txt',-0.000011996622921309337,'Budgetary_policy'),('1004448.txt',-0.000022913628394338784,'Equity_(finance)'),('1004448.txt',1.000034910251315,'Government_budget_balance'),('1004449.txt',0.6432091826807513,'Act_of_Congress'),('1004449.txt',0.3567908173192485,'Illegal_entry'),('100445.txt',0.3951290384490013,'International_organization'),('100445.txt',0.6048709615509971,'Privacy'),('1004450.txt',0.3965649035708698,'All_the_Amendments'),('1004450.txt',0.6034350964291303,'Refugee'),('1004451.txt',0.000011371076636564062,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1004451.txt',0.9999886289233656,'Meaning_(linguistics)'),('1004452.txt',0.686883791348804,'Act_of_Parliament'),('1004452.txt',0.31311620865119705,'Damages'),('1004453.txt',1,'Tobacco'),('1004454.txt',0.08172084667781046,'BBC_News'),('1004454.txt',0.44505694214877317,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1004454.txt',0.4732222111734165,'Tropical_cyclone'),('1004455.txt',1.000004036490739,'Prostitution'),('1004455.txt',-0.000004036490741411043,'Transport'),('1004456.txt',0.1660719548342094,'Bank_regulation'),('1004456.txt',0.5322290278425622,'Judgment_(law)'),('1004456.txt',0.30169901732323023,'Law'),('1004457.txt',0.6209103294831527,'Animal_rights'),('1004457.txt',0.17843920242458705,'Hungary'),('1004457.txt',0.20065046809226036,'Torture'),('1004458.txt',1,'Human'),('1004459.txt',1.0000856481085496,'Belgium'),('1004459.txt',-0.000007609151788698,'El_Señor_Presidente'),('1004459.txt',-0.00007803895676099782,'Slovakia'),('100446.txt',0.178122510575937,'Consumer'),('100446.txt',0.39576969240603993,'Health'),('100446.txt',0.19214868200128132,'Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins'),('100446.txt',0.23395911501674188,'Symbol'),('1004460.txt',0.25035262940850644,'Copyright_collective'),('1004460.txt',0.7496473705914936,'Monopoly'),('1004461.txt',0.4308765790424554,'This_Morning_(TV_programme)'),('1004461.txt',0.5691234209575444,'Viviane_Reding'),('1004462.txt',-0.0000036812806289752393,'Labour_economics'),('1004462.txt',1.0000036812806297,'Old_age'),('1004463.txt',0.23957211172779616,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004463.txt',0.7604278882722039,'Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises'),('1004464.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004466.txt',1,'John_Favour'),('1004467.txt',0.0019967454849733985,'Constitutional_amendment'),('1004467.txt',0.0347506737073828,'Legal_opinion'),('1004467.txt',0.0347506737073828,'Majority'),('1004467.txt',0.9285019071002611,'United_States_House_Committee_on_Agriculture'),('1004468.txt',0.002348632404493577,'Fundamental_rights'),('1004468.txt',0.23243495187922864,'Judgment_(law)'),('1004468.txt',0.765216415716278,'United_States_House_Committee_on_Agriculture'),('1004469.txt',0.7451046645422166,'Austrian_Empire'),('1004469.txt',0.25489533545778364,'Bachelor_of_Science'),('100447.txt',-0.000024312835439739084,'Christmas_and_holiday_season'),('100447.txt',1.000032117082511,'Market_economy'),('100447.txt',-0.000007804247072007974,'Othmar_Karas'),('1004470.txt',0.5285158258788102,'Code_of_conduct'),('1004470.txt',0.47148417412118937,'Digital_television'),('1004471.txt',0.5211057148369811,'Comitology'),('1004471.txt',0.37024422862423834,'Refugee'),('1004471.txt',0.10865005653878057,'Treaty_of_Rome'),('1004472.txt',1,'Sheep'),('1004473.txt',1,'Balance_sheet'),('1004474.txt',0.6101509807321226,'Organization'),('1004474.txt',0.38984901926787785,'Tobacco'),('1004476.txt',0.2082425367857926,'Balance_sheet'),('1004476.txt',0.09363268660864948,'Basel'),('1004476.txt',0.6981247766055573,'Venture_capital'),('1004478.txt',1,'Livestock'),('1004479.txt',0.7284456672716262,'Framework_decision'),('1004479.txt',0.2715543327283743,'Point_of_order'),('100448.txt',1,'United_Nations_Security_Council'),('1004480.txt',-0.000003296329571815742,'Biodiesel'),('1004480.txt',1.0000032963295715,'Biofuel'),('1004481.txt',0.6991588849468667,'Border'),('1004481.txt',0.3008411150531315,'Illegal_immigration'),('1004482.txt',1,'Family'),('1004483.txt',0.1938497809133067,'Pierre_Jonckheer'),('1004483.txt',0.8061502190866927,'Renewable_energy'),('1004485.txt',0.11237943633949239,'French_ship_Assuré_(1667)'),('1004485.txt',0.25245855354475677,'Gross_domestic_product'),('1004485.txt',0.16689865766481324,'Othmar_Karas'),('1004485.txt',0.468263352450938,'Reconstruction_Era'),('1004486.txt',0.0002794645598728007,'Agnes_Schierhuber'),('1004486.txt',0.18755307972852006,'Flood'),('1004486.txt',0.3200056486676383,'Gross_domestic_product'),('1004486.txt',0.4921618070439681,'Lower_Austria'),('1004487.txt',0.521539033691955,'Bachelor_of_Science'),('1004487.txt',0.478460966308045,'Science'),('1004488.txt',1,'Traffic'),('1004489.txt',1,'Public_service'),('100449.txt',0.7555315549190283,'Cold_War'),('100449.txt',0.24446844508097168,'Croatia'),('1004490.txt',0.5195170118481711,'Cooperation'),('1004490.txt',0.48048298815182905,'Youth'),('1004491.txt',1,'European_Peoples_Party_Group'),('1004492.txt',0.45551139342195124,'Procedural_law'),('1004492.txt',0.5444886065780491,'Subsidiarity'),('1004493.txt',0.34003108635576396,'European_integration'),('1004493.txt',0.6599689136442356,'Political_party'),('1004494.txt',0.48665552571655685,'European_Parliament'),('1004494.txt',0.5133444742834432,'Member_state_of_the_European_Union'),('1004495.txt',-0.00001111384632133934,'Extremism'),('1004495.txt',-0.00003863046138683384,'Prime_Ministers_Questions'),('1004495.txt',1.0000497443077083,'Resolution_(law)'),('1004497.txt',0.6238472051449192,'Epizootic'),('1004497.txt',0.37615279485508085,'Subsidiarity'),('1004498.txt',1,'Police'),('1004499.txt',0.0003278802131387931,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council'),('1004499.txt',0.9996721197868599,'European_Central_Bank'),('10045.txt',0.5021939555116207,'Extremism'),('10045.txt',0.15726826662278415,'George_W._Bush'),('10045.txt',0.18662276603433467,'Israel'),('10045.txt',0.15391501183126188,'Palestinians'),('100450.txt',0.31779545795895364,'Equity_(finance)'),('100450.txt',0.36104362466938084,'Financial_Services_Action_Plan'),('100450.txt',0.14094571609770595,'Innovation'),('100450.txt',0.18021520127396012,'Pension'),('1004500.txt',0.22856534430036665,'Business'),('1004500.txt',0.22765073833988184,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets'),('1004500.txt',0.245464841369899,'On_What_Matters'),('1004500.txt',0.2983190759898527,'Payment'),('1004502.txt',1,'Construction'),('1004503.txt',0.5441919346222482,'Construction'),('1004503.txt',0.45580806537775115,'Renewable_energy'),('1004504.txt',1,'Agriculture'),('1004505.txt',1,'Referendum'),('1004506.txt',0.13183925626796772,'Asian_people'),('1004506.txt',0.6677413834477338,'Bank_regulation'),('1004506.txt',0.2004193602842971,'Ideology'),('1004508.txt',0.11124861993586349,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council'),('1004508.txt',0.549815984767212,'Economic_growth'),('1004508.txt',0.33893539529692457,'Sustainability'),('100451.txt',1,'Budgetary_policy'),('1004510.txt',1,'Person'),('1004511.txt',1,'Greece'),('1004512.txt',1.000014195331818,'Innovation'),('1004512.txt',-0.000014195331819165464,'Unemployment'),('1004513.txt',1,'Discrimination'),('1004514.txt',1,'Macau'),('1004515.txt',1,'Capital_punishment'),('1004516.txt',-0.000007774121825881196,'Balkans'),('1004516.txt',-0.000009806668463484929,'European_Central_Bank'),('1004516.txt',1.0000175807902905,'Financial_market'),('1004517.txt',0.24494662962580943,'Emotion'),('1004517.txt',0.75505337037419,'Material_conditional'),('1004519.txt',0.4586992499890957,'Alexander_Radwan'),('1004519.txt',0.5413007500109043,'Inflation'),('1004520.txt',0.5178199067369068,'Belgium'),('1004520.txt',0.14771569561679035,'Karla_Peijs'),('1004520.txt',0.3344643976463027,'Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('1004522.txt',1,'Pension'),('1004524.txt',0.48914718148122965,'Labour_economics'),('1004524.txt',0.5108528185187704,'Treaty_of_Rome'),('1004525.txt',0.4492615834757472,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1004525.txt',0.5507384165242526,'Public_administration'),('1004526.txt',0.2201100071588079,'Climate_change'),('1004526.txt',0.43786375357703416,'Tax_incidence'),('1004526.txt',0.3420262392641579,'Tax_rate'),('1004528.txt',0.23014419062228966,'Committee'),('1004528.txt',0.3601721638800156,'Labour_economics'),('1004528.txt',0.4096836454976946,'Reductionism'),('1004529.txt',0.5011802177484191,'Corporate_tax'),('1004529.txt',0.1466613115333525,'Human_migration'),('1004529.txt',0.3521584707182285,'Workforce'),('100453.txt',1,'European_Economic_and_Social_Committee'),('1004530.txt',-0.000027759040009398504,'Rail_transport'),('1004530.txt',1.00002775904001,'Subsidy'),('1004531.txt',0.398403227926074,'Othmar_Karas'),('1004531.txt',0.601596772073926,'Spanish_language'),('1004532.txt',1,'Nuclear_power'),('1004533.txt',0.8285297851928572,'Law'),('1004533.txt',0.17147021480714214,'Legal_personality'),('1004535.txt',1,'Dublin'),('1004537.txt',1,'Voting'),('1004538.txt',-0.000003175781854145402,'Credit_(finance)'),('1004538.txt',1.0000031757818526,'Real_property'),('1004539.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('100454.txt',0.6190463534178051,'Patience'),('100454.txt',0.38095364658219544,'Political_union'),('1004540.txt',0.20366829207546364,'Basel_problem'),('1004540.txt',0.7963317079245361,'Unfair_business_practices'),('1004541.txt',1,'Agriculture'),('1004542.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004544.txt',1,'Austrian_Peoples_Party'),('1004545.txt',1,'European_integration'),('1004546.txt',0.6078491408320178,'Nuclear_power'),('1004546.txt',0.39150605810109873,'Nuclear_power_plant'),('1004546.txt',0.0006448010668835319,'Nuclear_safety_and_security'),('1004547.txt',1,'Torture'),('1004548.txt',1,'Drug'),('1004549.txt',1.0000111854646092,'Cold_War'),('1004549.txt',-0.000006168402433536695,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('1004549.txt',-0.000005017062179101842,'Malta'),('100455.txt',0.07554090562363662,'Mr._President_(band)'),('100455.txt',0.31588046500572725,'Trans-European_Networks'),('100455.txt',0.6085786293706366,'Vienna'),('1004550.txt',0.6281210897794457,'Cartel'),('1004550.txt',0.37187891022055425,'Competition_law'),('1004551.txt',0.5810336002079861,'Excise'),('1004551.txt',0.4189663997920148,'Tax'),('1004552.txt',1,'Insurance'),('1004553.txt',0.8078217153755402,'Laconic_phrase'),('1004553.txt',0.19217828462446215,'Transposition_(law)'),('1004554.txt',0.6133646885884543,'Craft'),('1004554.txt',0.3866353114115466,'On_What_Matters'),('1004555.txt',1,'Environmental_liability_directive'),('1004556.txt',1,'Terrorism'),('1004557.txt',0.646266835703041,'Economic_globalization'),('1004557.txt',0.35373316429695906,'Manufacturing'),('1004558.txt',1,'European_Central_Bank'),('1004559.txt',1,'Illegal_immigration'),('100456.txt',1,'European_Central_Bank'),('1004561.txt',0.23991739926525008,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('1004561.txt',0.7600826007347499,'Point_of_order'),('1004562.txt',0.20043498355885064,'Cattle'),('1004562.txt',0.5667092581137052,'Interest'),('1004562.txt',0.23285575832744407,'Sheep'),('1004563.txt',1,'Goal'),('1004564.txt',0.5692601440071817,'Fundamentalism'),('1004564.txt',0.4307398559928182,'Terrorism'),('1004565.txt',1,'Crime'),('1004566.txt',0.4918630227557599,'Car'),('1004566.txt',0.3489223599128605,'Risk'),('1004566.txt',0.1592146173313788,'Sentence_(law)'),('1004567.txt',0.9943770599425329,'Advocacy'),('1004567.txt',0.005607931613648883,'Subsidiarity'),('1004567.txt',0.000015008443818833998,'Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe'),('1004568.txt',0.47589950162090466,'Benchmarking'),('1004568.txt',0.26754775531061636,'Credit_rating_agency'),('1004568.txt',0.25519229141856525,'Stock_market'),('1004568.txt',0.0013604516499136205,'Volunteering'),('1004569.txt',1,'Mr._President_(musical)'),('100457.txt',0.18505841136379272,'E-commerce'),('100457.txt',0.526022400801467,'Question_Time_(TV_series)'),('100457.txt',0.14456745369033505,'Science'),('100457.txt',0.14435173414440486,'This_Morning_(TV_programme)'),('1004570.txt',1.0000445277949668,'Dickie_Goodman'),('1004570.txt',-0.000009087837340305855,'English_relative_clauses'),('1004570.txt',-0.00003543995762621328,'Voting'),('1004571.txt',1,'Euro_coins'),('1004573.txt',0.6651744101917031,'Convention_(norm)'),('1004573.txt',0.334825589808297,'Europol'),('1004574.txt',-0.000015525661024229648,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union'),('1004574.txt',-0.000015134073152991817,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004574.txt',1.0000306597341775,'Privatization'),('1004575.txt',0.3826160493233585,'Intermodal_freight_transport'),('1004575.txt',0.6173839506766409,'Luxembourg'),('1004576.txt',0.6502922733906994,'Labour_economics'),('1004576.txt',0.3497077266093012,'Subsidiarity'),('1004578.txt',1,'Turkey'),('1004579.txt',0.46428043180699957,'Biodiesel'),('1004579.txt',0.5357195681930006,'Manufacturing'),('1004580.txt',1,'Judicial_independence'),('1004581.txt',1,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004582.txt',0.4862277189630109,'Competition_law'),('1004582.txt',0.513772281036989,'Fine_(penalty)'),('1004583.txt',0.4785467303252988,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament'),('1004583.txt',0.4849774831231205,'President_of_France'),('1004583.txt',0.03647578655158063,'Referendum'),('1004584.txt',0.31558543787895976,'Crime'),('1004584.txt',0.6844145621210416,'Organized_crime'),('1004585.txt',1,'Subsidiarity'),('1004586.txt',0.43936665918472056,'Farce'),('1004586.txt',0.5606333408152795,'Refugee'),('1004587.txt',0.7074797787746939,'Option_(finance)'),('1004587.txt',0.2925202212253053,'Transport'),('1004588.txt',0.11277596375564286,'Advocacy_group'),('1004588.txt',0.553348839223312,'President_of_the_United_States'),('1004588.txt',0.33387519702104523,'Spanish_language'),('1004589.txt',1,'Air_pollution'),('100459.txt',0.5549299450244728,'European_Parliament'),('100459.txt',0.188986854563134,'Fact'),('100459.txt',0.25608320041239296,'Justice'),('1004591.txt',1,'Gross_domestic_product'),('1004594.txt',0.2507027567677053,'Modus_operandi'),('1004594.txt',0.7492972432322947,'Value_(ethics)'),('1004595.txt',1,'Goal'),('1004596.txt',1,'Road'),('1004597.txt',1,'Refugee'),('1004599.txt',1,'Bachelors_degree'),('10046.txt',1,'Recruitment'),('100460.txt',1,'Legislature'),('1004600.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004601.txt',1,'Skill'),('1004603.txt',0.998322898407904,'Free_will'),('1004603.txt',0.0016771015920959609,'Material_conditional'),('1004604.txt',1,'Mr._President_(musical)'),('1004605.txt',0.613230877585716,'European_Union_legislative_procedure'),('1004605.txt',0.38676912241428363,'Public_health'),('1004607.txt',0.25554652480445567,'Cultural_area'),('1004607.txt',0.744453475195544,'E-commerce'),('1004608.txt',0.8446747952389662,'Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('1004608.txt',0.15532520476103387,'Question_Time_(TV_series)'),('1004609.txt',0.12497182220145975,'Prime_Ministers_Questions'),('1004609.txt',0.334241838981469,'Spain'),('1004609.txt',0.5407863388170712,'United_Kingdom'),('100461.txt',1,'Animal_testing'),('1004611.txt',1,'Iron_Curtain'),('1004612.txt',1,'Insurance'),('1004613.txt',1,'Animal_rights'),('1004614.txt',0.5550602746581395,'Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('1004614.txt',0.4449397253418607,'Subsidiarity'),('1004615.txt',1,'Mr._President_(title)'),('1004616.txt',0.27869645605451704,'Monopoly'),('1004616.txt',0.14464356004530923,'Negotiation'),('1004616.txt',0.3943421975789913,'Poverty'),('1004616.txt',0.18231778632118303,'Wealth'),('1004617.txt',1.0000185048924064,'International_trade'),('1004617.txt',-0.00001850489240751989,'Wealth'),('1004618.txt',0.07858938103220586,'Company'),('1004618.txt',0.5491725696057529,'Efficiency'),('1004618.txt',0.20877808142089818,'Monopoly'),('1004618.txt',0.16345996794114262,'Shareholder'),('1004619.txt',0.6675972635634114,'Ideology'),('1004619.txt',0.3324027364365889,'Subsidiarity'),('100462.txt',1,'Remuneration'),('1004620.txt',-0.000011916250522237279,'Cattle'),('1004620.txt',1.0000119162505217,'Party_of_European_Socialists'),('1004621.txt',0.1443143492609285,'Austrian_Peoples_Party'),('1004621.txt',0.8556856507390727,'European_Democrats'),('1004622.txt',0.23063416154458144,'Airline'),('1004622.txt',0.1555184850833527,'Appeal'),('1004622.txt',0.12160984825666289,'Contract'),('1004622.txt',0.4922375051154032,'European_Court_of_Justice'),('1004623.txt',1,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('1004624.txt',0.010913064107332457,'Illegal_immigration'),('1004624.txt',0.00002803700946787481,'Luxembourg'),('1004624.txt',0.00012782720864833977,'Right_of_asylum'),('1004624.txt',0.9889310716745516,'Schengen_Area'),('1004625.txt',0.1788316978875022,'Insolvency'),('1004625.txt',0.28842040311517986,'International_organization'),('1004625.txt',0.5327478989973163,'NATO'),('1004626.txt',1,'Language'),('1004627.txt',0.38073466450411625,'Labour_economics'),('1004627.txt',0.46680416457962093,'Leisure'),('1004627.txt',0.15246117091626346,'Working_time'),('1004628.txt',-0.000019631567561502345,'Farmer'),('1004628.txt',-0.000024987198578364194,'Iron_Curtain'),('1004628.txt',1.0000446187661394,'Lower_Austria'),('100463.txt',0.38053966903237135,'Agriculture'),('100463.txt',0.48665844763289295,'Farmer'),('100463.txt',0.13280188333473528,'Food'),('1004630.txt',0.26257958527197683,'Compatibilism'),('1004630.txt',0.7374204147280231,'Forestry'),('1004631.txt',0.10203331601443949,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council'),('1004631.txt',0.35896508684806094,'Member_state_of_the_European_Union'),('1004631.txt',0.000655709916568153,'Rapporteur'),('1004631.txt',0.5383458872209315,'Subsidiarity'),('1004632.txt',-0.000009077162367607947,'License'),('1004632.txt',1.000009077162368,'Repeal'),('1004633.txt',0.28438600715854173,'Far-right_politics'),('1004633.txt',0.19438174099986483,'Mr._President_(band)'),('1004633.txt',0.5212322518415933,'Parliament'),('1004634.txt',0.3704157592169343,'Balkans'),('1004634.txt',0.6295842407830656,'Parliamentary_system'),('1004635.txt',1,'Austrian_Peoples_Party'),('1004636.txt',1.0000050894075518,'Financial_Services_Action_Plan'),('1004636.txt',-0.000005089407552922473,'Transparency_(behavior)'),('1004638.txt',0.6365632674995098,'Demography'),('1004638.txt',0.20771202556347962,'Family'),('1004638.txt',0.15572470693701038,'Social_security'),('1004639.txt',0.5857429586227267,'Discrimination'),('1004639.txt',0.414257041377273,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights'),('100464.txt',1,'European_Committee_for_Standardization'),('1004640.txt',0.4205740880900044,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('1004640.txt',0.5792904976275671,'Europe'),('1004640.txt',0.00013541428242854584,'Mr._President_(band)');
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `documenttopicdistribution` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;

--
-- Table structure for table `entity`
--

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `entity`;
/*!40101 SET @saved_cs_client     = @@character_set_client */;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = utf8 */;
CREATE TABLE `entity` (
  `Title` varchar(200) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`Title`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = @saved_cs_client */;

--
-- Dumping data for table `entity`
--

LOCK TABLES `entity` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `entity` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `entity` VALUES ('...And_a_Happy_New_Year'),('...Like_Clockwork'),('...To_Skin_a_Cat'),('1,000,000,000'),('1973_oil_crisis'),('1979_energy_crisis'),('2000_in_Austria'),('2000_Today'),('2003_in_Luxembourg'),('2007_Africa–EU_Summit'),('2008_Andean_diplomatic_crisis'),('2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference'),('2013_enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('5_euro_note'),('7_July_2005_London_bombings'),('A-not-A_question'),('A1_(Croatia)'),('Aaron_Wildavsky'),('Abdominal_pain'),('Abdul_Qadir_(Afghan_leader)'),('Abettor'),('Abortion'),('Abortion-rights_movements'),('Absolute_monarchy'),('Abstention'),('Abstract_and_concrete'),('Academic_degree'),('Accessibility'),('Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union'),('Access_network'),('Access_to_finance'),('Accidents_Happen'),('Accountability'),('Accounting'),('Acquis_communautaire'),('Action_(philosophy)'),('Action_theory_(philosophy)'),('Activism'),('Acts_of_Union_1707'),('Act_of_Congress'),('Act_of_Parliament'),('Acute_stress_reaction'),('Addiction'),('Administrative_divisions_of_New_York'),('Adolescence'),('Adoption'),('Adriatic_Sea'),('Adultery'),('Adult_education'),('Adult_stem_cell'),('Advance_healthcare_directive'),('Adventitiousness'),('Adverse_effect'),('Advertising'),('Advice_and_consent'),('Advisory_board'),('Advocacy'),('Advocacy_group'),('Ad_hoc'),('Aerial_tramway'),('Aesthetics'),('Affirmative_action'),('Afghanistan'),('Afghan_refugees'),('Africa'),('Afterlife'),('Aftermath_(The_Rolling_Stones_album)'),('Ageing'),('Ageism'),('Agenda_2000'),('Agenda_21'),('Age_of_majority'),('Age_of_Oil'),('Agitprop'),('Agnes_Schierhuber'),('Agreement_on_Agriculture'),('Agricultural_economics'),('Agricultural_policy'),('Agricultural_subsidy'),('Agriculture'),('Ahmed_Zaki_Yamani'),('Aid'),('Aiding_and_abetting'),('Airbus'),('Airline'),('Airport'),('Air_conditioning'),('Air_pollution'),('Air_traffic_control'),('Al-Qaeda'),('Albania'),('Alcohol'),('Alexander_Radwan'),('Alexander_the_Great'),('Alexandre_Lamfalussy'),('Alexandros_Sakellariou'),('Alfred_North_Whitehead'),('Algeria'),('Allies_of_World_War_II'),('All_for_This'),('All_in_the_Same_Boat'),('All_Systems_Go_(Donna_Summer_album)'),('All_the_Amendments'),('All_the_Reasons_Why'),('Alms'),('Alpha_and_beta_carbon'),('Alpine_Convention'),('Alpine_states'),('Alps'),('Alsace'),('Alternative_energy'),('Alternative_fuel'),('Alternative_fuel_vehicle'),('Altiero_Spinelli'),('Ambiguity'),('Amélie'),('Americans'),('American_Civil_War'),('American_School_(economics)'),('Americas'),('Amnesty_law'),('Amsterdam'),('Amsterdam_Treaty'),('Anaerobic_digestion'),('Analysis'),('Analytic–synthetic_distinction'),('Ana_de_Palacio_y_del_Valle-Lersundi'),('Ancient_Greece'),('Ancient_Rome'),('Andean_Community'),('Andean_states'),('Andrei_Sakharov'),('Andrew_Duff'),('Andrew_Young_School_of_Policy_Studies'),('And_I_Thank_You'),('And_That_Reminds_Me'),('Angela_Merkel'),('Anglo-Irish_Treaty_Dáil_vote'),('Anglosphere'),('Angola'),('Animal_feed'),('Animal_nutrition'),('Animal_product'),('Animal_rights'),('Animal_testing'),('Animal_welfare'),('Ankara'),('Anna_Diamantopoulou'),('Anneli_Hulthén'),('Antarctic'),('Anti-aging_cream'),('Anti-Fascist_Council_for_the_National_Liberation_of_Yugoslavia'),('Anti-partisan_operations_in_World_War_II'),('Anti-racism'),('Anti-social_behaviour'),('Antisemitism'),('Antisemitism_in_Europe'),('Antithesis'),('Antonios_Trakatellis'),('António_Castanheira_Neves'),('António_Vitorino'),('Anxiety'),('Anything_for_You_(Gloria_Estefan_and_Miami_Sound_Machine_song)'),('Apathy'),('Appeal'),('Apple_Inc.'),('Applied_science'),('Apprenticeship'),('Arable_land'),('Arabs'),('Arab_League'),('Arab_world'),('Area_of_freedom,_security_and_justice'),('Argentina'),('Argon'),('Argument'),('Ariel_Sharon'),('Aristides_Baltas'),('Aristotelis_Korakas'),('Arithmetic'),('Arja_Salafranca'),('Arkadiusz_Gołaś'),('Armenia'),('Armenians'),('Armenian_Genocide_recognition'),('Árpád_Pusztai'),('Arrest_warrant'),('Arsenal_F.C.'),('Arsenic'),('Art'),('Artemis_(satellite)'),('Article_99'),('Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution'),('Artificial_intelligence'),('Arto_Paasilinna'),('Ascending_chain_condition'),('Asia'),('Asian_Americans'),('Asian_people'),('Asia–Europe_Meeting_(ASEM)'),('Aspirin'),('Assault'),('Association_of_Southeast_Asian_Nations'),('Astrid_Lulling'),('As_It_Is_(band)'),('As_the_Days_Go_By'),('As_Time_Goes_By_(song)'),('Athens'),('Attention'),('Attitude_(psychology)'),('Auction'),('Audit'),('Auditors_report'),('Aurangabad,_Maharashtra'),('Austerity'),('Austria'),('Austria-Hungary'),('Austrians'),('Austrian_Armed_Forces'),('Austrian_Empire'),('Austrian_Institute_of_Economic_Research'),('Austrian_National_Library'),('Austrian_Parliament'),('Austrian_Peoples_Party'),('Austrian_schilling'),('Austrian_School'),('Austria_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest'),('Authoritarianism'),('Authority'),('Autonomous_car'),('Autonomy'),('Auto_racing'),('Avalanche'),('Avant-garde'),('Aviation'),('Axiom'),('Azerbaijan'),('A_Closed_Book_(film)'),('A_Double_Dose'),('A_for_Anything'),('A_House_to_Let'),('A_La_Ronde'),('A_Little_Respect'),('A_Matter_of_Life_and_Death_(film)'),('A_Must_to_Avoid'),('A_New_Beginning'),('A_New_World_(Angel)'),('A_Place_in_the_World_(album)'),('A_priori_and_a_posteriori'),('A_Question_of_Time'),('A_Rock_and_Roll_Alternative'),('A_Rush_of_Blood_to_the_Head'),('A_Single_Sky'),('B._F._Skinner'),('Baby_transport'),('Bachelors_degree'),('Bachelor_of_Science'),('Background_independence'),('Back_to_the_Wall_(song)'),('Baghdad'),('Balanced_budget'),('Balance_of_nature'),('Balance_of_payments'),('Balance_of_trade'),('Balance_sheet'),('Balkanization'),('Balkans'),('Baltic_states'),('Banana'),('Bank'),('Banknote'),('Bankruptcy'),('Bank_charge'),('Bank_of_Greece'),('Bank_regulation'),('Bank_reserves'),('Ban_(law)'),('Barbara_Prammer'),('Barcelona'),('Bark_(sound)'),('Bark_beetle'),('Barrel_(unit)'),('Basel'),('Basel_Committee_on_Banking_Supervision'),('Basel_II'),('Basel_problem'),('Base_and_superstructure'),('Base_level'),('Bashar_al-Assad'),('Bashir_Khanbhai'),('Basic_research'),('Basic_Treaty,_1972'),('Battery_cage'),('Bavaria'),('BBC_News'),('Beautiful_as_You'),('Beauty'),('Beauty_pageant'),('Because_the_Internet'),('Because_We_Want_To'),('Bedrock'),('Beef'),('Beer'),('Begging_the_question'),('Begin_Again_(film)'),('Behavior'),('Belarus'),('Belgium'),('Belief'),('Benchmarking'),('Beneš_decrees'),('Benzene'),('Benzo(a)pyrene'),('Beqaa_Valley'),('Berlin'),('Berlin_Blockade'),('Bernd_Posselt'),('Berne_Convention'),('Bernhard_Friedmann'),('Bernhard_Rapkay'),('Bertel_Haarder'),('Best_practice'),('Best_Western'),('Bethlehem'),('Beyond_Security'),('Biarritz'),('Bias'),('Bible'),('Biblical_Magi'),('Bicameralism'),('Big-box_store'),('Big_Bang'),('Big_Boys'),('Big_Brother_(TV_series)'),('Big_Idea_Entertainment'),('Bilateralism'),('Bill_(law)'),('Bill_Clinton'),('Binaural_(album)'),('Binding_over'),('Biodegradable_waste'),('Biodiesel'),('Biodiversity'),('Biodiversity_action_plan'),('Bioenergy'),('Bioethics'),('Biofuel'),('Biogas'),('Biological_warfare'),('Biology'),('Biomass'),('Biometrics'),('Biostatistics'),('Biotechnology'),('Biotope'),('Bird'),('Birth_control'),('Birth_rate'),('Bit_stuffing'),('Blackmail'),('Blacksmith'),('Black_hole'),('Blair_House_Agreement'),('Blank_Check_(film)'),('Bleeding'),('Block_Exemption_Regulation'),('Blood_donation'),('Blood_plasma'),('Blood_product'),('Blood_substitute'),('Blood_transfusion'),('Blueprint'),('Board_of_directors'),('BoDeans'),('Bodies_of_the_European_Union'),('Bohunice,_Levice_District'),('Bohunice_(Prachatice_District)'),('Bologna_Process'),('Bond_(finance)'),('Bone_fracture'),('Bone_meal'),('Bonn'),('Border'),('Borders_and_Time'),('Border_control'),('Botswana'),('Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy'),('Boxing'),('Boycott'),('Bracket'),('Brainpower'),('Brand_piracy'),('Brass_Tacks_(Pakistani_TV_series)'),('Bratislava'),('Bratislava_1'),('Brazil'),('Breach_of_contract'),('Break_a_leg'),('Brenner_Base_Tunnel'),('Brenner_Pass'),('Brenner_Railway'),('Bretton_Woods_system'),('Bribery'),('British_Airways'),('Broadcasting'),('Broker'),('Brokered_convention'),('Bruno_Kreisky'),('Brussels'),('Buchenwald_concentration_camp'),('Budapest'),('Budget'),('Budgetary_policy'),('Budget_of_the_European_Union'),('Bülent_Ecevit'),('Bulgaria'),('Bundesgesetzblatt_(Austria)'),('Bureaucracy'),('Burnishing_(pottery)'),('Bus'),('Business'),('Business_administration'),('Business_cycle'),('Business_method_patent'),('Business_operations'),('Business_process'),('Butter'),('Buzzword'),('By_Common_Consent'),('Cabinet_(government)'),('Cable_car'),('Cadmium'),('Call_for_bids'),('Call_Me_No_One'),('Calvados_(department)'),('Calvin_Klein'),('Camelina'),('Camouflage'),('Canadian_Hot_100'),('Cancer'),('Cancún'),('Cannabis_(drug)'),('Cannes_Film_Festival'),('Canon_EOS_flash_system'),('Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)'),('Capacity_utilization'),('Capitalism'),('Capital_(economics)'),('Capital_accumulation'),('Capital_flight'),('Capital_formation'),('Capital_market'),('Capital_punishment'),('Capital_structure'),('Car'),('Carbon_dioxide'),('Carbon_monoxide'),('Carcinogen'),('Cardiff'),('Card_marking'),('Cargo'),('Caribbean'),('Carinthia'),('Carlo_Fatuzzo'),('Carl_Schmitt'),('Carole_King'),('Caroline_Lucas'),('Carriageway'),('Carrot'),('Cartel'),('Caspian_Sea'),('Cat'),('Catalytic_converter'),('Catholic_Church'),('Cattle'),('Caucasus'),('Causality'),('Cause_of_action'),('Celluloid_Heroes'),('Censorship'),('Central_Asia'),('Central_bank'),('Central_Eastern_Alps'),('Central_Europe'),('Central_European_Free_Trade_Agreement'),('Central_government'),('Central_heating'),('Cent_(currency)'),('Cereal'),('Cernavodă_Nuclear_Power_Plant'),('Certification'),('CE_marking'),('Chain_reaction'),('Chain_store'),('Chairman-in-Office'),('Chalk'),('Chalkidiki'),('Chancellor'),('Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter'),('Charitable_organization'),('Charles_Sanders_Peirce'),('Charter'),('Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union'),('Chat_room'),('Chechnya'),('Chemical_substance'),('Chemical_warfare'),('Chemistry'),('Cheque'),('Cher'),('Chernobyl_disaster'),('Cher_Ami'),('Chess'),('Chichester'),('Child'),('Childrens_rights'),('Child_abuse'),('Child_care'),('Child_labour'),('Child_pornography'),('Child_sexual_abuse'),('Chile'),('Chimpanzee'),('China'),('China–United_States_relations'),('Chlorofluorocarbon'),('Choice'),('Chose'),('Christiaan_van_Velzen'),('Christian'),('Christianity'),('Christian_democracy'),('Christian_right'),('Christmas'),('Christmas_and_holiday_season'),('Chris_Patten'),('Church_and_State_(comics)'),('Cigarette'),('Citizenship'),('Citizenship_of_the_European_Union'),('Citizens_band_radio'),('Citizens_Union_for_South_Tyrol'),('Civilian'),('Civilization'),('Civil_and_political_rights'),('Civil_engineering'),('Civil_law_(legal_system)'),('Civil_liberties'),('Civil_service'),('Civil_society'),('Civil_war'),('Clairvoyance'),('Class_conflict'),('Claude_Turmes'),('Clean_technology'),('Cliché'),('Climate'),('Climate_change'),('Climate_change_mitigation'),('Clog'),('Closer_to_the_Heart'),('Cloven_hoof'),('Co-determination'),('Coagulation'),('Coal'),('Coalition_government'),('Cobblestone_Runway'),('Code_(law)'),('Code_of_conduct'),('Coercion'),('Coffee'),('Cogeneration'),('Cognition'),('Coherentism'),('Coin'),('Cold_Feet'),('Cold_War'),('Colin_Campbell_(geologist)'),('Collateral_(finance)'),('Collection_agency'),('Collective_action'),('Collectivism'),('Cologne'),('Colombia'),('Colonialism'),('Colorado'),('Combined_transport'),('Combustion'),('Comitology'),('Commerce'),('Commercial_law'),('Committee'),('Committee_of_Permanent_Representatives'),('Committee_of_Wise_Men_on_the_Regulation_of_European_Securities_Markets'),('Committee_on_Toxicity'),('Commodity'),('Common-pool_resource'),('Commonwealth_of_Independent_States'),('Common_Agricultural_Policy'),('Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy'),('Common_good'),('Common_land'),('Common_law'),('Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy'),('Common_sense'),('Communication'),('Communication_studies'),('Communism'),('Community'),('Community_forestry'),('Community_method'),('Company'),('Comparative_advantage'),('Comparative_advertising'),('Comparative_law'),('Compatibilism'),('Competition'),('Competition_(economics)'),('Competition_law'),('Competitiveness'),('Competitive_advantage'),('Competitors_for_the_Crown_of_Scotland'),('Complement_(set_theory)'),('Composite_measure'),('Compost'),('Comprehensive_examination'),('Compulsory_license'),('Computer'),('Computer_hardware'),('Computer_industry'),('Computer_network'),('Computer_programming'),('Concentration_of_media_ownership'),('Concept'),('Conceptual_model'),('Concession_(politics)'),('Confederation'),('Conference_call'),('Conference_of_Presidents_of_the_European_Parliament'),('Confessional_writing'),('Confidence'),('Confidentiality'),('Confirmation_bias'),('Conflict_management'),('Conflict_of_interest'),('Conflict_resolution'),('Conformity'),('Congenital_disorder'),('Conglomerate_(company)'),('Congress_of_Berlin'),('Connecticut_Compromise'),('Conscience'),('Consciousness'),('Conscription'),('Consensus_decision-making'),('Consent'),('Consequentialism'),('Conservation_(ethic)'),('Conservation_biology'),('Conservatism'),('Conspiracy_(criminal)'),('Constituent_assembly'),('Constitution'),('Constitutional_amendment'),('Constitutional_convention_(political_meeting)'),('Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)'),('Constitutional_law'),('Constitution_of_Ireland'),('Construction'),('Construction_Products_Directive'),('Consultant'),('Consumer'),('Consumerism'),('Consumer_confidence'),('Consumer_protection'),('Consumer_spending'),('Consumption_(economics)'),('Contextualism'),('Context_(language_use)'),('Continent'),('Continental_Europe'),('Continuing_education'),('Contract'),('Contradiction'),('Controversial_discussions'),('Conventional_wisdom'),('Convention_(norm)'),('Convention_on_Biological_Diversity'),('Convention_on_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_in_a_Transboundary_Context'),('Convention_on_the_Future_of_Europe'),('Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child'),('Conversation'),('Cooperation'),('Cooperative'),('Copenhagen'),('Copenhagen_criteria'),('Coping_(psychology)'),('Copyright'),('Copyright_collective'),('Copyright_Directive'),('Copyright_infringement'),('Corporate_finance'),('Corporate_tax'),('Corporation'),('Correlation_and_dependence'),('Cosmetics'),('Cost'),('Cost–benefit_analysis'),('Council_of_Europe'),('Council_of_the_European_Union'),('Counter-terrorism'),('Counterattack'),('Counterfeit'),('Country_neutrality_(international_relations)'),('Country_of_origin_principle'),('Courage'),('Course_(education)'),('Court'),('Court_order'),('Craft'),('Creation_myth'),('Creativity'),('Credibility'),('Creditor'),('Creditors_rights'),('Credit_(finance)'),('Credit_crunch'),('Credit_limit'),('Credit_rating'),('Credit_rating_agency'),('Credit_risk'),('Creep_(Radiohead_song)'),('Crime'),('Crimes_against_humanity'),('Crime_in_Bucharest'),('Crime_in_Russia'),('Criminal_code'),('Criminal_justice'),('Criminal_law'),('Criminal_procedure'),('Crisis_management'),('Crispy_Ambulance'),('Critical_theory'),('Critical_thinking'),('Criticism'),('Croatia'),('Croatian_language'),('Crop'),('Crop_rotation'),('Cruelty_to_animals'),('Crusades'),('Ctesiphon'),('Cucumber'),('Cul-de-sac'),('Cultural_area'),('Cultural_assimilation'),('Cultural_capital'),('Cultural_heritage'),('Cultural_landscape'),('Cultural_policies_of_the_European_Union'),('Cultural_policy'),('Culture'),('Culture_minister'),('Culture_of_Europe'),('Currency'),('Currency_competition'),('Currency_union'),('Curriculum'),('Curvature'),('Customer'),('Customs'),('Custom_(law)'),('Cycle_of_poverty'),('Cyclone_Lothar_and_Martin'),('Cynicism_(philosophy)'),('Cyprus'),('Czechs'),('Czech_language'),('Czech_Republic'),('Dag_Hammarskjöld'),('Damages'),('Dangerous_(Michael_Jackson_album)'),('Dangerous_goods'),('Danube'),('Darkest_Hour_(band)'),('Data'),('Database'),('Data_Protection_Directive'),('David_Hume'),('David_Martin_(Scottish_politician)'),('Day-In_Day-Out'),('Days_Go_By_(The_Offspring_album)'),('Dear_Reader'),('Death'),('Death_squad'),('Debate'),('Debt'),('Debt_ratio'),('Decentralised_system'),('Decentralization'),('Deception'),('Decision-making'),('Declaration_of_war'),('Decoction'),('Decomposition'),('Deductive_reasoning'),('Deed'),('Defamation'),('Default_judgment'),('Defense_(legal)'),('Deferred_tax'),('Deficit_spending'),('Definition'),('Definitions_of_terrorism'),('Deflation'),('Déjà_Vu_(Beyoncé_song)'),('Demand'),('Democracy'),('Democratic_Choice_(Israel)'),('Democratic_deficit'),('Democratic_Party_(United_States)'),('Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo'),('Democratic_structuring'),('Demographics_of_Afghanistan'),('Demographics_of_Austria'),('Demography'),('Demonstration_(protest)'),('Denial'),('Denmark'),('Denomination_(currency)'),('Den_Burg'),('Department_for_Transport'),('Deportation'),('Deposit_account'),('Depreciation'),('Depression_(mood)'),('Deregulation'),('Derogation'),('Der_Standard'),('Desert_Flower'),('Desiderius_Erasmus'),('Desires_for_the_Future'),('Desire_the_Right'),('Despotism'),('Détente'),('Determinative'),('Determinism'),('Deus_ex_machina'),('Developmental_biology'),('Development_aid'),('De_facto'),('De_minimis'),('De_rerum_natura'),('Dialogue'),('Dickie_Goodman'),('Dictator'),('Dictatorship'),('Diesel_fuel'),('Dietary_supplement'),('DigitalEurope'),('Digital_divide'),('Digital_rights_management'),('Digital_television'),('Dignity'),('Diploma'),('Diplomacy'),('Diplomatic_mission'),('Directive_(European_Union)'),('Directive_96/82/EC'),('Directive_on_services_in_the_internal_market'),('Directorate-General_for_Competition'),('Direct_democracy'),('Direct_election'),('Dirty_Work_(1998_film)'),('Disability'),('Disability_rights_movement'),('Discipline_(academia)'),('Discourse'),('Discrimination'),('Disease'),('Disgust'),('Disinfectant'),('Disinformation'),('Diskless_shared-root_cluster'),('Disposable_and_discretionary_income'),('Dispute_resolution'),('Dispute_Settlement_Body'),('Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union'),('Distribution_(economics)'),('Division_of_labour'),('Djibouti'),('DNA'),('Do-support'),('Doctor_of_both_laws'),('Doctrine'),('Dog'),('Doha'),('Domain_name'),('Domestication'),('Domicile_(law)'),('Donation'),('Dont_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater'),('Doomsday_Clock'),('Doris_Pack'),('Dot-com_bubble'),('Double_criminality'),('Double_majority'),('Double_taxation'),('Doubt'),('Dover_Publications'),('Do_the_Live'),('Drafting_water'),('Draft_(hull)'),('Drivers_license'),('Driving_under_the_influence'),('Droit_de_suite'),('Drug'),('Drug-related_crime'),('Dry_dock'),('Dualism'),('Dual_basis'),('Dubai'),('Dublin'),('Dublin_Regulation'),('Durban'),('Duress'),('Dutch_auction'),('Duty'),('E-commerce'),('E-procurement'),('Earmark_(politics)'),('Earth'),('Earth:_Final_Conflict'),('Earth_Summit'),('Earth_Summit_2002'),('Easier_Said_Than_Done'),('Eastern_Europe'),('East_Timor'),('Eco-Management_and_Audit_Scheme'),('Eco-social_market_economy'),('Ecological_economics'),('Ecology'),('Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights'),('Economics'),('Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council'),('Economic_and_monetary_union'),('Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union'),('Economic_development'),('Economic_efficiency'),('Economic_equilibrium'),('Economic_globalization'),('Economic_growth'),('Economic_indicator'),('Economic_inequality'),('Economic_interventionism'),('Economic_migrant'),('Economic_policy'),('Economic_sanctions'),('Economic_system'),('Economies_of_scale'),('Economy'),('Economy_of_Argentina'),('Economy_of_Austria'),('Economy_of_Belgium'),('Economy_of_China'),('Economy_of_Europe'),('Economy_of_Singapore'),('Economy_of_the_European_Union'),('Economy_of_the_United_States'),('Ecosystem'),('Ecotoxicity'),('Edmund_Stoiber'),('Education'),('Educational_institution'),('Educational_technology'),('Education_policy'),('Edvard_Beneš'),('Effective_method'),('Effects_of_global_warming'),('Efficiency'),('Efficient_energy_use'),('Egalitarianism'),('Egotism'),('Egypt'),('Ehud_Barak'),('Election'),('Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom'),('Elections_in_Turkey'),('Elections_to_the_European_Parliament'),('Election_law'),('Electoral_fraud'),('Electrical_ballast'),('Electrical_grid'),('Électricité_de_France'),('Electricity'),('Electricity_generation'),('Electric_power'),('Electric_power_distribution'),('Electric_power_transmission'),('Electronics'),('Electronic_business'),('Electronic_money'),('Elías_Larry_Ayuso'),('Elizabeth_Arden'),('Elmar_Brok'),('El_Señor_Presidente'),('Email'),('Embryo'),('Emergence'),('Emerging_technologies'),('Emigration'),('Eminent_domain'),('Emissions_trading'),('Emotion'),('Empire_of_Japan'),('Employability'),('Employee_benefit'),('Employment'),('Endemic_(epidemiology)'),('End_of_the_Road'),('Energy'),('Energy_conservation'),('Energy_crop'),('Energy_development'),('Energy_economics'),('Energy_industry'),('Energy_intensity'),('Energy_market'),('Energy_policy'),('Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union'),('Energy_security'),('Energy_supply'),('Enforcement_Directive'),('Engineering'),('English_language'),('English_relative_clauses'),('Enhanced_9-1-1'),('Enhanced_cooperation'),('Enlargement_of_the_European_Union'),('Entity'),('Entrepreneurship'),('Environmentalism'),('Environmental_degradation'),('Environmental_economics'),('Environmental_health'),('Environmental_impact_assessment'),('Environmental_law'),('Environmental_liability_directive'),('Environmental_movement'),('Environmental_policy'),('Environmental_policy_of_the_European_Union'),('Environmental_protection'),('En_passant'),('Epidemic'),('Epistemology'),('Epithet'),('Epizootic'),('Equality_before_the_law'),('Equal_opportunity'),('Equity_(finance)'),('Erasmus_Mundus'),('Erhard_Busek'),('Erkki_Liikanen'),('Erosion'),('Erratum'),('Errikos_Belies'),('Escape_clause'),('Escape_Plan_(film)'),('Espionage'),('Essen'),('Essence'),('Essentialism'),('Ethical_egoism'),('Ethics'),('Ethnic_cleansing'),('Ethnic_group'),('Ethnic_groups_in_Europe'),('Etymology'),('Etymology_of_electricity'),('Eugenics'),('Euphoria'),('Eurasian_Economic_Union'),('Euratom_Treaty'),('Euro'),('Eurocentrism'),('Eurochambres'),('Eurocommerce'),('Eurocontrol'),('Eurocorps'),('Eurodac'),('Eurojust'),('Europe'),('Europeanisation'),('European_Agency_for_Reconstruction'),('European_Agricultural_Guarantee_Fund'),('European_Americans'),('European_Anti-fraud_Office'),('European_Arrest_Warrant'),('European_Atomic_Energy_Community'),('European_Audiovisual_Observatory'),('European_Central_Bank'),('European_Charter_for_Regional_or_Minority_Languages'),('European_Commission'),('European_Commissioner'),('European_Commissioner_for_External_Relations'),('European_Committee_for_Standardization'),('European_Committee_of_the_Regions'),('European_Convention_for_the_Prevention_of_Torture_and_Inhuman_or_Degrading_Treatment_or_Punishment'),('European_Convention_on_Human_Rights'),('European_Council'),('European_Court_of_Auditors'),('European_Court_of_Human_Rights'),('European_Court_of_Justice'),('European_cucumber'),('European_debt_crisis'),('European_Democracy'),('European_Democracy_(Cyprus)'),('European_Democrats'),('European_driving_licence'),('European_Economic_and_Social_Committee'),('European_Economic_Area'),('European_Economic_Community'),('European_emission_standards'),('European_Environment_Agency'),('European_Food_Safety_Authority'),('European_integration'),('European_Investment_Bank'),('European_Neighbourhood_Policy'),('European_Parliament'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgetary_Control'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Employment_and_Social_Affairs'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs'),('European_Parliament_Committee_on_Petitions'),('European_Parliament_election,_2004'),('European_Party_(Cyprus)'),('European_Patent_Convention'),('European_Patent_Office'),('European_Peoples_Party'),('European_Peoples_Party_Group'),('European_Police_College'),('European_Public_Prosecutor'),('European_Refugee_Fund'),('European_School'),('European_Security_Strategy'),('European_social_model'),('European_Southern_Observatory'),('European_Space_Agency'),('European_superstate'),('European_System_of_Accounts'),('European_Union'),('European_Union_and_the_United_Nations'),('European_Union_energy_label'),('European_Union_law'),('European_Union_legislative_procedure'),('European_Year_of_People_with_Disabilities'),('Europe_1'),('Europe_of_Democracies_and_Diversities'),('Europol'),('Euroscepticism'),('Eurostar'),('Eurostat'),('Eurozone'),('Euro_banknotes'),('Euro_coins'),('Euro_convergence_criteria'),('Euthanasia'),('Evaluation'),('Evaluation_strategy'),('Event_(philosophy)'),('Everything_at_Once'),('Everything_but_Arms'),('Everything_in_the_Garden'),('Everything_I_Wanted_(Dannii_Minogue_song)'),('Evidence'),('Evidence-based_medicine'),('Evidence_(law)'),('Evil'),('Evolution'),('Evolutionary_biology'),('Ewa_Klamt'),('Excise'),('Executive_(government)'),('Executive_Board_of_the_European_Central_Bank'),('Existence'),('Experience'),('Experiment'),('Explanation'),('Exploitation_of_labour'),('Exploitation_of_natural_resources'),('Export'),('Export_subsidy'),('Extended_family'),('Extended_play'),('Extermination_camp'),('Externality'),('Extinction'),('Extradition'),('Extremism'),('Eyewash'),('Face_the_Facts'),('Fact'),('Factors_of_production'),('Factory'),('Factor_VIII'),('Fair_trade'),('Faith'),('Fakhr_al-Mulk_Radwan'),('Family'),('Family_reunification'),('Family_reunion'),('Family_values'),('Famine'),('Far-left_politics'),('Far-right_politics'),('Farce'),('Farmer'),('Far_and_Away'),('Far_Cry'),('Far_Cry_(Rush_song)'),('Fascism'),('Fathom'),('Fatigue_(medical)'),('Fault_(geology)'),('Fauna'),('Faust'),('Fear'),('Fear_mongering'),('Federalism'),('Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation'),('Federal_Council_(Austria)'),('Federal_Europe'),('Federal_Reserve_System'),('Federation'),('Feels_So_Good_(Atomic_Kitten_album)'),('Felipe_González'),('Felix_Ermacora'),('Female_genital_mutilation'),('Feminism'),('Ferry_Aid'),('Feud'),('Feudalism'),('Fields_of_Action'),('Fighting_Discrimination'),('Figure_17'),('Figure_of_speech'),('Film'),('Final_Solution'),('Finance'),('Financial_centre'),('Financial_crimes'),('Financial_crisis'),('Financial_crisis_of_2007–08'),('Financial_endowment'),('Financial_institution'),('Financial_instrument'),('Financial_market'),('Financial_services'),('Financial_Services_Action_Plan'),('Fine_(penalty)'),('Fine_by_Me_(Chris_Brown_song)'),('Fingerprint'),('Finland'),('Finns'),('Fire'),('Fire_department'),('Fire_protection'),('First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution'),('First_language'),('Fiscal_policy'),('Fiscal_year'),('Fishery'),('Fissile_material'),('Flag_of_convenience'),('Flashback_(narrative)'),('Flat_tax'),('Flavor'),('Flax'),('Flea_market'),('Flextime'),('Flight_recorder'),('Flood'),('Flora'),('Florian_Mühlstein'),('Fodder'),('Folías'),('Food'),('Food_and_Agriculture_Organization'),('Food_industry'),('Food_processing'),('Food_safety'),('Food_security'),('Foot-and-mouth_disease'),('Forced_migration'),('Foreclosure'),('Foreign_Affairs_Council'),('Foreign_direct_investment'),('Foreign_policy'),('Forestry'),('Forgery'),('Forward_contract'),('For_but_not_with'),('For_Peace_and_Stability_(parliamentary_group)'),('For_the_New_Intellectual'),('For_Those_Who_Stay'),('Fossil'),('Fossil_fuel'),('Foster_care'),('Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution'),('Fourtou'),('Four_Weddings_and_a_Funeral'),('Framework_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_National_Minorities'),('Framework_decision'),('Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development'),('Frame_of_reference'),('Framing_(social_sciences)'),('France'),('France_national_rugby_union_team'),('Francis_of_Assisi'),('Frankfurter_Allgemeine_Zeitung'),('Fraud'),('Free-ranging_dog'),('Free-to-play'),('Freedom_and_the_Law'),('Freedom_of_choice'),('Freedom_of_information'),('Freedom_of_information_laws_by_country'),('Freedom_of_movement'),('Freedom_of_religion'),('Freedom_of_speech'),('Freedom_of_the_press'),('Freedom_of_thought'),('Freedom_Party_of_Austria'),('Free_France'),('Free_market'),('Free_rider_problem'),('Free_trade'),('Free_trade_area'),('Free_will'),('Freight_transport'),('French_language'),('French_ship_Assuré_(1667)'),('Frequency_allocation'),('Friedrich-Wilhelm_Graefe_zu_Baringdorf'),('Friedrich_Schiller'),('Frits_Bolkestein'),('Fritter'),('From_Safer_Place'),('From_the_Cradle_to_the_Grave_(album)'),('Fruit'),('Fuel_tax'),('Full_Circle_(magazine)'),('Full_employment'),('Fundamentalism'),('Fundamental_Orders_of_Connecticut'),('Fundamental_rights'),('Fundamental_Rights_Agency'),('Funding'),('Funicular'),('Further_education'),('Future'),('Futures_contract'),('Galileo_(satellite_navigation)'),('Galileo_Galilei'),('Gambling'),('Game_theory'),('Gas'),('Gaseous_fire_suppression'),('Gasoline'),('Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing'),('Gastronomy'),('Gas_chamber'),('Gender'),('Gender_equality'),('Gender_mainstreaming'),('General_Agreement_on_Trade_in_Services'),('Generic_drug'),('Genetically_modified_crops'),('Genetically_modified_food'),('Genetically_modified_organism'),('Genetics'),('Genetic_engineering'),('Geneva'),('Geneva_Conventions'),('Geneviève_Fraisse'),('Genoa'),('Genocide'),('Genotoxicity'),('Genotype'),('Gentlemens_agreement'),('Geopolitics'),('George_W._Bush'),('Georgia_(country)'),('Georg_Jarzembowski'),('Gerald_Ford'),('Gerald_Ratner'),('Gerhard_Schröder'),('Germans'),('Germany'),('German_Americans'),('German_Empire'),('German_fire_services'),('German_language'),('German_reunification'),('Germination'),('Gertrude_Tumpel-Gugerell'),('Get_a_Grip'),('Get_Heavy'),('Ghent'),('Ghetto'),('Gibraltar'),('Gift'),('Gillis_Neyts'),('Giorgos_Dimitrakopoulos'),('Give_In_to_Me'),('Give_the_People_What_They_Want_(The_Kinks_album)'),('Glasnost'),('Globalization'),('Global_catastrophic_risk'),('Global_financial_system'),('Global_politics'),('Global_Positioning_System'),('Global_warming'),('GLONASS'),('Goal'),('Goat'),('God'),('God_Forbid'),('Golan_Heights'),('Golden_goal'),('Gold_mining'),('Gomel'),('Gomel_Region'),('Good_(economics)'),('Good_and_evil'),('Good_faith'),('Good_governance'),('Good_Times'),('Gospel'),('Gossip'),('Gothenburg'),('Gothi'),('Gotthard_Pass'),('Gotthard_Road_Tunnel'),('Gotthard_Tunnel'),('Government'),('Government_budget'),('Government_budget_balance'),('Government_debt'),('Government_monopoly'),('Government_of_Austria'),('Government_of_the_Czech_Republic'),('Government_of_the_United_Kingdom'),('Government_procurement'),('Government_spending'),('Go_(game)'),('Go_That_Far'),('Gradient'),('Grandparent'),('Grand_National_Assembly_of_Turkey'),('Grape'),('Grassroots'),('Gravity'),('Graz'),('Greatest_common_divisor'),('Great_Britain'),('Great_Expectations'),('Great_power'),('Great_Recession'),('Great_St_Bernard_Pass'),('Greece'),('Greek_drachma'),('Greek_military_junta_of_1967–74'),('Greenhouse_gas'),('Green_paper'),('Green_Party_of_the_United_States'),('Green_politics'),('Grenoble'),('Gross_domestic_product'),('Gross_national_product'),('Gross_negligence'),('Gross_world_product'),('Groundwater'),('Group_cohesiveness'),('Growth_of_the_Old_Swiss_Confederacy'),('Grozny'),('Guerrilla_warfare'),('Guillaume_Garot'),('Guilt_(emotion)'),('Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar'),('Gulf_War'),('Günter_Benkö'),('Habitat'),('Habitats_Directive'),('Haemophilia'),('Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907'),('Halabja'),('Half-mast'),('Haloalkane'),('Hamid_Karzai'),('Handcuffs'),('Hand_in_Glove'),('Hand_on_Heart'),('Hannes_Swoboda'),('Hans-Peter_Martin'),('Hans_Blokland_(politician)'),('Hans_Kronberger_(politician)'),('Happiness'),('Happy_Man_(Cathal_Dunne_song)'),('Harald_Ettl'),('Harassment'),('Harmonized_System'),('Harmony'),('Harry_Bouwman'),('Hartmut_Nassauer'),('Harvest'),('Hate_speech'),('Hazardous_waste'),('Head_Above_Water'),('Head_of_government'),('Head_of_state'),('Health'),('Health_care'),('Health_insurance'),('Health_policy'),('Health_professional'),('Hearing_loss'),('Heat_of_combustion'),('Heaven'),('Heckler'),('Hectare'),('Hegemony'),('Helicopter'),('Helsinki'),('Helsinki_Headline_Goal'),('Here_&amp_Now_(band)'),('Here_and_Nowhere_Else'),('Here_and_Now_(Boston)'),('Here_for_You_(Gorgon_City_song)'),('Here_for_You_(Kygo_song)'),('Here_It_Comes_Again_(Melanie_C_song)'),('Here_I_Am_(Kelly_Rowland_album)'),('Heritage_railway'),('Hermes'),('Hezbollah'),('Hierarchy'),('High-speed_rail'),('Higher_education'),('High_Hopes_(Frank_Sinatra_song)'),('High_Middle_Ages'),('High_Representative_of_the_Union_for_Foreign_Affairs_and_Security_Policy'),('High_tech'),('Hinrich_Wilhelm_Kopf'),('History'),('History_of_Europe'),('History_of_the_European_Union'),('History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary'),('History_of_the_State_of_Palestine'),('History_of_the_world'),('HIV/AIDS'),('Holding_the_Baby'),('Holiday'),('Holism'),('Hollywood'),('Holocaust_denial'),('Holte'),('Holy_Roman_Empire'),('Holy_See'),('Holy_Spirit'),('Homeostasis'),('Homogeneity_and_heterogeneity'),('Homosexuality'),('Hong_Kong'),('Honour'),('Hope'),('Hopes_and_Fears'),('Hormone'),('Hosni_Mubarak'),('House'),('Housewife'),('House_of_Habsburg'),('How_We_Do_(Party)'),('Hubert_Pirker'),('Hugh_Grant'),('Hugo_Grotius'),('Human'),('Humanism'),('Humanitarianism'),('Humanitarian_aid'),('Human_body'),('Human_geography'),('Human_impact_on_the_environment'),('Human_migration'),('Human_resources'),('Human_rights'),('Human_rights_in_Europe'),('Human_rights_in_the_United_States'),('Human_trafficking'),('Humiliation'),('Hungary'),('Hunger'),('Hustle!!!_(Dead_on_It)'),('Hyatt'),('Hydroelectricity'),('Hydrogen'),('Hygiene'),('Hyperinflation'),('Hypocrisy'),('Hypothesis'),('Hysteria'),('Idea'),('Idealism'),('Ideal_norm'),('Identity_(philosophy)'),('Identity_(social_science)'),('Identity_theft'),('Ideology'),('Ignalina_Nuclear_Power_Plant'),('Illegal_drug_trade'),('Illegal_entry'),('Illegal_immigration'),('Imagination'),('Immanuel_Kant'),('Immigration'),('Immigration_policy'),('Immigration_to_Canada'),('Immigration_to_the_United_States'),('Import'),('Import_quota'),('In.com'),('Incarceration_in_the_United_States'),('Incentive'),('Incentivisation'),('Incineration'),('Income'),('Income_tax'),('Incontinence_pad'),('Indecent_exposure'),('Independence'),('Independence/Democracy'),('Independent_(voter)'),('Independent_politician'),('India'),('Indian_subcontinent'),('Indigenous_peoples'),('Individual'),('Individualism'),('Individual_and_group_rights'),('Indonesia'),('Indulgence'),('Industrialisation'),('Industrial_applicability'),('Industrial_policy'),('Industrial_Revolution'),('Industry'),('Inferno_(Dante)'),('Inflation'),('Information'),('Information_Age'),('Information_and_communications_technology'),('Information_economy'),('Information_needs'),('Information_society'),('Information_system'),('Information_technology'),('Infrastructure'),('Inheritance'),('Initiative'),('Innovation'),('Inn_(river)'),('Insanity'),('Insect'),('Inside_Out_(2015_film)'),('Insolvency'),('Insolvency_Regulation_(EC)_1346/2000'),('Institute_for_European_Environmental_Policy'),('Institution'),('Institutionalisation'),('Institutions_for_Occupational_Retirement_Provision_Directive'),('Institutions_of_the_European_Union'),('Instrument_for_Structural_Policies_for_Pre-Accession'),('Insurance'),('Insurance_law'),('Insurgency'),('Intangible_asset'),('Integrated_circuit'),('Intellectual'),('Intellectual_property'),('Intelligence'),('Intelligentsia'),('Intensive_animal_farming'),('Intention'),('Intention_(criminal_law)'),('Intercultural_competence'),('Interest'),('Interest_rate'),('Intergovernmental_Conference'),('Intergovernmental_organization'),('Intermodal_freight_transport'),('Internal_audit'),('Internal_market'),('Internal_Market_in_Electricity_Directive'),('International_Atomic_Energy_Agency'),('International_Criminal_Court'),('International_criminal_law'),('International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia'),('International_development'),('International_Harvester_S-Series'),('International_Labour_Organization'),('International_law'),('International_Monetary_Fund'),('International_New_York_Times'),('International_organization'),('International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement'),('International_relations'),('International_sanctions'),('International_Security_Assistance_Force'),('International_trade'),('Internet'),('Internet_access'),('Internet_police'),('Internment'),('Interoperability'),('Interpersonal_relationship'),('Interreg'),('Interrogation'),('Intimate_parts_in_Islam'),('Intimidation'),('Intranet'),('Intuition'),('Invasive_species'),('Invention'),('Investment'),('Investment_in_post-invasion_Iraq'),('Investor'),('Invisible_balance'),('In_Between_Words'),('In_Gods_Hands_(film)'),('In_Good_Company_(2004_film)'),('In_My_Country'),('In_My_Lifetime,_Vol._1'),('In_Our_Water'),('In_situ'),('In_the_Flesh_(Blondie_song)'),('In_Time_with_You'),('In_Your_Care'),('In_Your_Words'),('Ionizing_radiation'),('IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report'),('Iran'),('Iranian_Revolution'),('Iraq'),('Iraq_disarmament_crisis'),('Iraq_Resolution'),('Iraq_War'),('Ireland'),('Irony'),('Iron_Curtain'),('Irreligion'),('Irrigation'),('Isaac_Newton'),('Islam'),('Islamic_fundamentalism'),('Islamism'),('Israel'),('Israelis'),('Israeli–Palestinian_conflict'),('Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process'),('Is_It_Any_Wonder?'),('Is_There_for_Honest_Poverty'),('Is_the_glass_half_empty_or_half_full?'),('Italians'),('Italian_language'),('Italy'),('I_Believe_in_You_(Kylie_Minogue_song)'),('I_Concur'),('I_Confess_(film)'),('I_Have_Nothing'),('I_Hold_On'),('I_Love_Marvel'),('I_Still_Do_(Eric_Clapton_album)'),('I_Thank_You_(Sam_&amp_Dave_song)'),('Jacob_Söderman'),('Jacques_Chirac'),('Jacques_Santer'),('Jacques_Sylla'),('Japan'),('Javier_Solana'),('Jean-Baptiste_Say'),('Jean-Louis_Bourlanges'),('Jean_Monnet'),('Jerusalem'),('Jews'),('Jihad'),('Jimmy_Carter'),('Joachim_Wuermeling'),('Job_interview'),('Job_security'),('Johannesburg'),('Johannes_Vermeer'),('Johannes_Voggenhuber'),('Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe'),('John_Amos_Comenius'),('John_B._Watson'),('John_Favour'),('John_H._Niebler'),('Joiner'),('Joint_Commission'),('Joint_Research_Centre'),('Joint_resolution'),('Joking_Apart'),('Jörg_Haider'),('Joseph_E._Hasten'),('Joseph_Goebbels'),('Journalism'),('Journalism_ethics_and_standards'),('Joy_of_Learning'),('Jo_Leinen'),('Judaism'),('Judge'),('Judgement'),('Judgment_(law)'),('Judicial_assistance'),('Judicial_independence'),('Judicial_review'),('Judiciary'),('Jump_the_Gun_(album)'),('Jürgen_Zimmerling'),('Jurisdiction'),('Jurist'),('Justice'),('Justice_ministry'),('Just_a_Minute'),('Just_for_the_Record_(Barbra_Streisand_album)'),('Just_Imagine...'),('Kabul'),('Kale'),('Kaliningrad'),('Karl-Heinz_Florenz'),('Karl-Heinz_Grasser'),('Karla_Peijs'),('Karl_von_Wogau'),('Kathalijne_Buitenweg'),('Keep_on_Working'),('Kidnapping'),('Kilogram'),('Kilowatt_hour'),('Kindergarten'),('Kingdom_of_England'),('Kingdom_of_Great_Britain'),('Kingdom_of_Italy'),('Kingdom_of_Romania'),('Kinship'),('Kitzsteinhorn'),('Klagenfurt'),('Knot'),('Knowledge'),('Knowledge_economy'),('Knowledge_management'),('Kofi_Annan'),('Kosovo'),('Kosovo_Liberation_Army'),('Kosovo_War'),('Kozloduy'),('Krista_van_Velzen'),('Kroger'),('Krško'),('Kuala_Lumpur'),('Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(1978–present)'),('Kurdistan_Workers_Party'),('Kurds'),('Kurt_Waldheim'),('Kuwait'),('Kyösti_Virrankoski'),('Kyoto_Protocol'),('Labor_rights'),('Labour_economics'),('Labour_law'),('Labour_market_flexibility'),('Labour_Party_(UK)'),('Laconic_phrase'),('Laken'),('Lake_Constance'),('Lamb_and_mutton'),('Land-use_planning'),('Landfill_Directive'),('Landscape_architecture'),('Land_der_Berge,_Land_am_Strome'),('Land_mine'),('Land_reform'),('Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe'),('Langenhagen'),('Language'),('Large_goods_vehicle'),('Latin'),('Latin_America'),('Latin_American_studies'),('Latvia'),('LAutrichienne'),('Law'),('Lawsuit'),('Lawyer'),('Law_enforcement'),('Law_enforcement_in_Italy'),('Law_of_Iraq'),('Law_of_obligations'),('Law_of_the_Czech_Republic'),('Law_of_the_jungle'),('La_Hague'),('Lead'),('Leadership'),('LEADER_programme'),('Lead_Me_On_(Amy_Grant_album)'),('Learning'),('Least_developed_country'),('Lebanon'),('Led_Zeppelin'),('Left-wing_politics'),('Leftovers'),('Legality'),('Legal_aid'),('Legal_burden_of_proof'),('Legal_certainty'),('Legal_history'),('Legal_immunity'),('Legal_instrument'),('Legal_liability'),('Legal_opinion'),('Legal_personality'),('Legal_remedy'),('Legend_(Robin_of_Sherwood_soundtrack)'),('Legislation'),('Legislative_Council_of_Hong_Kong'),('Legislature'),('Legitimacy_(family_law)'),('Legitimacy_(political)'),('Legume'),('Leisure'),('Leisure_industry'),('Leonardo_da_Vinci'),('Let_It_Be'),('Let_the_Road'),('Leverage_(finance)'),('Le_Figaro'),('Liability_insurance'),('Liberalism'),('Liberalization'),('Liberal_democracy'),('Liberty'),('Library'),('Libya'),('License'),('Licensure'),('Lie'),('Liechtenstein'),('Liège'),('Life'),('Lifelong_learning'),('Lifestyle_(sociology)'),('Life_expectancy'),('Life_insurance'),('Life_in_Hell'),('Limited_overs_cricket'),('Linguistics'),('Linz'),('Lipservice'),('Lip_Service_(1988_film)'),('Lip_Service_(game_show)'),('Lip_Service_(TV_series)'),('Liquidation'),('Lisbon'),('Lisbon_Strategy'),('List_of_European_Council_meetings'),('List_of_food_labeling_regulations'),('List_of_national_legal_systems'),('Literacy'),('Literature'),('Lithuania'),('Litre'),('Little_Joy'),('Livestock'),('Live_export'),('Living_Proof_(Cher_album)'),('Ljubljana'),('Loan'),('Lobbying'),('Local_government'),('Local_number_portability'),('Lock,_stock,_and_barrel'),('Locomotive'),('Logging'),('Logic'),('Logical_consequence'),('Logistics'),('London'),('Long-term_support'),('Lost_in_Translation_(soundtrack)'),('Los_Angeles'),('Louder_than_Words_(David_Guetta_and_Afrojack_song)'),('Low-cost_carrier'),('Lower_Austria'),('Lowest_common_denominator'),('Loyola_de_Palacio'),('Ludford,_Shropshire'),('Ludwig_Maximilian_University_of_Munich'),('Luigi_Cocilovo'),('Lumber'),('Luxembourg'),('M7_motorway_(Hungary)'),('Maastricht_Treaty'),('Maat'),('Macanese_pataca'),('Macau'),('Macedonia_naming_dispute'),('Machine'),('Macroeconomics'),('Made_to_measure'),('Madrid'),('Magic_(paranormal)'),('Magnetism'),('Magnus_Sinus'),('Mahmoud_Abbas'),('Maiden_speech'),('Maik_Bullmann'),('Mail'),('Mail_order'),('Mainspring'),('Mainstream'),('Maintenance,_repair,_and_operations'),('Maize'),('Majority'),('Majority_rule'),('Make_It_Happen_(Mariah_Carey_song)'),('Malnutrition'),('Malta'),('Maltese_people'),('Management'),('Mandate_of_Heaven'),('Mange'),('Manifold'),('Mantle_(geology)'),('Manufacturing'),('Manure'),('Marco_Asensio'),('Marco_Polo'),('Margin_of_error'),('Marianne_Thyssen'),('Marie-Noëlle_Lienemann'),('Marielle_de_Sarnez'),('Marietta_Giannakou'),('Mario_Brunetta'),('Marketing'),('Marketing_year'),('Market_(economics)'),('Market_economy'),('Market_failure'),('Market_liquidity'),('Market_power'),('Market_profile'),('Market_research'),('Market_share'),('Marseille'),('Martial_law'),('Martin_Callanan'),('Martin_Schulz'),('Mary_Honeyball'),('Mass_media'),('Mass_production'),('Materialism'),('Materials_science'),('Material_conditional'),('Mathematical_finance'),('Mathematics'),('Matter'),('Matter_(philosophy)'),('Matthias_Zimmerling'),('Matti_Wuori'),('Maxim_(philosophy)'),('May_Day'),('Mazar-i-Sharif'),('MCA_Records'),('McDonalds'),('Meaning_(linguistics)'),('Meaning_of_life'),('Meat'),('Meat_and_bone_meal'),('Mediation'),('Media_literacy'),('MEDIA_Programme'),('Medical_research'),('Medicine'),('Mediterranean_Sea'),('Mediterranean_States'),('Melk'),('Member_of_parliament'),('Member_of_the_European_Parliament'),('Member_state_of_the_European_Union'),('Memory'),('Mental_disorder'),('Mercedes_Echerer'),('Mercosur'),('Mercury_(element)'),('Mergers_and_acquisitions'),('Merger_control'),('Meritocracy'),('Methodology'),('Mexico'),('Miami'),('Michel_Barnier'),('Michel_Théato'),('Microsoft_Windows'),('Micro_combined_heat_and_power'),('Middle_East'),('Middle_Way'),('Might_makes_right'),('Migrant_worker'),('Military'),('Military_communications'),('Military_dictatorship'),('Military_occupation'),('Military_of_the_European_Union'),('Milk'),('Millstone,_New_Jersey'),('Mind'),('Mind_control'),('Mind_Games_(John_Lennon_album)'),('Mineral_oil'),('Minimum_harmonisation'),('Minimum_wage'),('Mining'),('Mining_accident'),('Minister_of_the_Interior_(France)'),('Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_and_International_Development_(France)'),('Minna_Kauppi'),('Minority_government'),('Minority_group'),('Minority_language'),('Minority_rights'),('Minor_(law)'),('Minsk'),('Mir'),('Miracle'),('Misdemeanor'),('Mitchell_Report_(Arab–Israeli_conflict)'),('Mobile_phone'),('Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant'),('Mock_combat'),('Modernism'),('Modernity'),('Modernization_theory'),('Modern_history'),('Mode_of_transport'),('Modus_operandi'),('Monarch'),('Monetary_policy'),('Money'),('Money_laundering'),('Monoculture'),('Monopoly'),('Montenegro'),('Montreal_Convention'),('Mont_Blanc'),('Mont_Blanc_Tunnel'),('Morality'),('Moral_imperative'),('Moral_responsibility'),('Moreira_da_Silva'),('Morocco'),('Mortgage_loan'),('Mosaic'),('Moses'),('Mother'),('Motion_(physics)'),('Motion_of_no_confidence'),('Motivation'),('Motorboat'),('Motor_vehicle'),('Mountaineering'),('Mr._President_(band)'),('Mr._President_(board_game)'),('Mr._President_(musical)'),('Mr._President_(title)'),('Mr._President_(TV_series)'),('Mrs._Pack'),('Muammar_Gaddafi'),('Much_Afraid'),('Muddling_Through'),('Multi-junction_solar_cell'),('Multi-speed_Europe'),('Multiculturalism'),('Multilateralism'),('Multilingualism'),('Multimedia'),('Multinational_corporation'),('Multiplier_(economics)'),('Multiview_orthographic_projection'),('Municipality'),('Municipal_solid_waste'),('Murder'),('Murphys_law'),('Mushroom'),('Music'),('Muslim'),('Must-carry'),('Mutualism_(economic_theory)'),('Myanmar'),('N._F._S._Grundtvig'),('Nagorno-Karabakh'),('Nagorno-Karabakh_War'),('Named_and_Shamed'),('Name_and_shame'),('Nanny'),('Naples'),('Napster'),('Nation'),('Nationalism'),('Nationalist_Movement_Party'),('Nationality'),('Nationalization'),('National_anthem'),('National_Assembly_(France)'),('National_Council_(Austria)'),('National_debt_of_the_United_States'),('National_Gallery'),('National_Health_Service'),('National_interest'),('National_parliaments_of_the_European_Union'),('National_security'),('Nation_state'),('NATO'),('Natural_and_legal_rights'),('Natural_disaster'),('Natural_environment'),('Natural_gas'),('Natural_resource'),('Natural_resource_management'),('Natural_selection'),('Natura_2000'),('Nature'),('Navigability'),('Nazism'),('Nazi_concentration_camps'),('Nazi_Germany'),('Nazi_human_experimentation'),('Nazi_symbolism'),('Near_East'),('Necessity'),('Necessity_and_sufficiency'),('Negative_liberty'),('Negligence'),('Negotiation'),('Neil_MacCormick'),('Neither_Am_I'),('Neo-Nazism'),('Neoliberalism'),('Neolithic_Revolution'),('Neoplatonism'),('Netherlands'),('Network_society'),('Network_Ten'),('Neue_Zürcher_Zeitung'),('Neurosis'),('Neutering'),('Never_Too_Late_(Kylie_Minogue_song)'),('Never_Too_Old'),('Newspaper'),('New_Brooms'),('New_Horizons_(Cyprus)'),('New_media'),('New_Sharon,_New_Jersey'),('New_Silk_Route'),('New_START'),('New_wave_music'),('New_Years_Day'),('New_Years_Eve'),('New_York'),('New_York_City'),('New_Zealand_National_Party'),('Nextdoor'),('Ne_bis_in_idem'),('Nicaragua'),('Nice'),('Nickel'),('Nick_Nicely'),('Nicole_Fontaine'),('Nigeria'),('Night_Flight_(TV_series)'),('Nitrate'),('Nitrogen'),('Nitrous_oxide'),('Nobel_Peace_Prize'),('Noise'),('Non-Aligned_Movement'),('Non-food_crop'),('Non-governmental_organization'),('Non-Inscrits'),('Non-interventionism'),('Non-refoulement'),('Non-wage_labour_costs'),('Nonprofit_organization'),('Norbert_Glante'),('Nordic_countries'),('Norman_Langen'),('Norm_(social)'),('Northern_Alliance'),('Northern_Dimension'),('Northern_Ireland'),('North_Africa'),('North_Korea'),('North–South_divide'),('Norway'),('Notary_public'),('Not_from_There'),('Not_Giving_In'),('Not_the_End_of_the_World_(McCaughrean_novel)'),('NOx'),('No_Doubt'),('No_Exit'),('No_Fun_at_All'),('No_One_(Alicia_Keys_song)'),('Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents'),('Nuclear_energy_policy'),('Nuclear_family'),('Nuclear_flask'),('Nuclear_fusion'),('Nuclear_material'),('Nuclear_physics'),('Nuclear_power'),('Nuclear_power_in_the_European_Union'),('Nuclear_power_plant'),('Nuclear_reactor'),('Nuclear_reprocessing'),('Nuclear_safety_and_security'),('Nuclear_weapon'),('Nullum_crimen,_nulla_poena_sine_praevia_lege_poenali'),('Number'),('Nutrition'),('Objectivity_(philosophy)'),('Object_(philosophy)'),('Obligation'),('Observation'),('Occupational_safety_and_health'),('Occupational_stress'),('Octabromodiphenyl_ether'),('Odin_Langen'),('Odysseus'),('Offensive_(military)'),('Official_culture'),('Offshoring'),('Oil-for-Food_Programme'),('Oil_reserves'),('Oil_well'),('Oisin'),('Old_age'),('Old_maid_(card_game)'),('Ombudsman'),('Omnivore'),('One-nation_conservatism'),('One-party_state'),('One_Last_Thing...'),('One_Moment_in_Time_(comics)'),('One_Step_at_a_Time_(George_Strait_album)'),('One_Step_Closer_(Linkin_Park_song)'),('Only_Time_Will_Tell_(song)'),('Only_Yesterday_(1933_film)'),('On_Our_Own_(1994_TV_series)'),('On_What_Matters'),('OPEC'),('Open_Arms_(Journey_song)'),('Open_border'),('Open_standard'),('Opera'),('Opinion'),('Opium'),('Oppression'),('Optimism'),('Option_(finance)'),('Oranges_and_Lemons'),('Orbital_inclination'),('Ore'),('Organic_farming'),('Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development'),('Organization'),('Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe'),('Organized_crime'),('Organofluorine_chemistry'),('Original_Six'),('Orthodox_Judaism'),('Osama_bin_Laden'),('Oslo'),('Ostracism'),('Othmar_Karas'),('Ottawa'),('Ottawa_Treaty'),('Otto_von_Habsburg'),('Our_Inventions'),('Our_Relations'),('Outline_(list)'),('Outside_the_Law_(1930_film)'),('Out_for_Blood_(Lita_Ford_album)'),('Overselling'),('Overshoot_(population)'),('Overtime'),('Overtime_(sports)'),('Ownership'),('Ownership_unbundling'),('Ozone'),('Ozone_depletion'),('Ozone_layer'),('Pacifism'),('Pakistan'),('Palace_of_Europe'),('Palace_of_Westminster'),('Palate'),('Palestinians'),('Pan-European_identity'),('Panacea'),('Panacea_(medicine)'),('Pandoras_box'),('Pandora_(console)'),('Paper_tiger'),('Parachute'),('Paradigm_shift'),('Paralysis'),('Parasitism'),('Pardon'),('Parent'),('Paris'),('Parliament'),('Parliamentary_authority'),('Parliamentary_procedure'),('Parliamentary_system'),('Parliament_of_Canada'),('Parliament_of_the_Czech_Republic'),('Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom'),('Parochialism'),('Particulates'),('Partnership'),('Partnership_for_Peace'),('Party_for_Freedom'),('Party_of_European_Socialists'),('Pascal_Lamy'),('Passport'),('Passports_of_the_European_Union'),('Pass_the_Buck_(U.S._game_show)'),('Pass_This_On'),('Patent'),('Patentability'),('Patent_application'),('Paternalism'),('Patience'),('Patient'),('Patriotism'),('Paul_Rübig'),('Payment'),('Pay_to_fly'),('Peace'),('Peacekeeping'),('Peace_Clause'),('Peace_Now'),('Pedestrian_zone'),('Penal_labour'),('Pension'),('Pentabromodiphenyl_ether'),('People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals'),('Perception'),('Perforce'),('Performance'),('Permanent_Council'),('Permanent_Council_of_the_Organization_of_American_States'),('Permanent_residency'),('Perpetual_motion'),('Person'),('Personality_psychology'),('Personal_injury'),('Persons_with_reduced_mobility'),('Persuasion'),('Pessimism'),('Petersberg_tasks'),('Peter_Sichrovsky'),('Petroleum'),('Phare'),('Pharmaceutical_drug'),('Pharmaceutical_industry'),('Pharmacy'),('Phenomenon'),('Philippe_Busquin'),('Philippe_Morillon'),('Philosophical_analysis'),('Philosophical_realism'),('Philosophical_skepticism'),('Philosophy'),('Philosophy,_Politics_and_Economics'),('Phrase'),('Phthalate'),('Piano'),('Piece_of_Cake_(novel)'),('Pierre_Bourdieu'),('Pierre_Jonckheer'),('Pierre_Moscovici'),('Pie_in_the_Sky_(TV_series)'),('Pig'),('Piia-Noora_Kauppi'),('Pillarisation'),('Pipeline_transport'),('Piracy'),('Pisa'),('Planned_economy'),('Planning'),('Plasma_(physics)'),('Plasticizer'),('Play.it'),('Please_Twins!'),('Plenary_session'),('Plurality-at-large_voting'),('Plurality_(voting)'),('Plus_and_minus_signs'),('Plutonium'),('Poetry'),('Point_of_order'),('Point_of_view_(philosophy)'),('Poison'),('Polarity_(international_relations)'),('Polemic'),('Poles'),('Police'),('Police_academy'),('Police_and_Judicial_Co-operation_in_Criminal_Matters'),('Police_brutality'),('Policy'),('Policy_debate'),('Polish_language'),('Polish_Peoples_Republic'),('Political_campaign'),('Political_correctness'),('Political_corruption'),('Political_economy'),('Political_football'),('Political_freedom'),('Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament'),('Political_party'),('Political_spectrum'),('Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico'),('Political_system'),('Political_union'),('Politician'),('Politics'),('Politics_of_Austria'),('Politics_of_the_European_Union'),('Polity'),('Polluter_pays_principle'),('Pollution'),('Polychlorinated_biphenyl'),('Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins'),('Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon'),('Polygamy'),('Polyvinyl_chloride'),('Pope'),('Population_decline'),('Population_growth'),('Populism'),('Pornography'),('Portugal'),('Portuguese_language'),('Positivism'),('Post-punk'),('Post-Soviet_states'),('Potato'),('Poverty'),('Poverty_reduction'),('Poverty_threshold'),('Poverty_trap'),('Power_(social_and_political)'),('Power_outage'),('Power_station'),('Practice_of_law'),('Pragmatism'),('Prague'),('Precautionary_principle'),('Precedent'),('Predicate_(mathematical_logic)'),('Preemptive_war'),('Prejudice'),('Preschool'),('Presidency_of_George_W._Bush'),('President_for_Life'),('President_of_France'),('President_of_Pakistan'),('President_of_Portugal'),('President_of_the_European_Central_Bank'),('President_of_the_European_Commission'),('President_of_the_European_Council'),('President_of_the_European_Parliament'),('President_of_the_European_Union'),('President_of_the_United_States'),('Pressurized_heavy-water_reactor'),('Preventive_healthcare'),('Preventive_war'),('Price'),('Price_controls'),('Price_fixing'),('Price_of_oil'),('Pricing'),('Pride'),('Primary_and_secondary_legislation'),('Primary_education'),('Primary_energy'),('Primary_production'),('Primary_sector_of_the_economy'),('Primate'),('Prime_minister'),('Prime_Ministers_Questions'),('Prime_Minister_of_France'),('Prime_Minister_of_Israel'),('Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom'),('Principle'),('Prison'),('Pristina'),('Privacy'),('Private_foundation'),('Private_property'),('Private_sector'),('Privatization'),('Pro-Pain'),('Probability'),('Problem_solving'),('Procedural_law'),('Process_philosophy'),('Proclamation'),('Procrastination'),('Procurement'),('Prodi_Commission'),('Production_(economics)'),('Productive_forces'),('Productivity'),('Product_(business)'),('Product_bundling'),('Product_liability'),('Product_lifecycle'),('Product_recall'),('Profession'),('Professional'),('Professional_certification'),('Professional_development'),('Profit_(accounting)'),('Profit_motive'),('Progressive_Alliance_of_Socialists_and_Democrats'),('Progressivism'),('Prohibition'),('Project_management'),('Project_planning'),('Promotion_(marketing)'),('Propaganda'),('Property'),('Property_(philosophy)'),('Proportionality_(law)'),('Proportional_representation'),('Proposition'),('Prosecutor'),('Prosperity'),('Prostitution'),('Protectionism'),('Protein'),('Protein_production'),('Protest'),('Proverb'),('Provisional_government'),('Prudence'),('Psychological_trauma'),('Psychology'),('Public_administration'),('Public_broadcasting'),('Public_finance'),('Public_good'),('Public_health'),('Public_interest'),('Public_opinion'),('Public_property'),('Public_relations'),('Public_sector'),('Public_service'),('Public_speaking'),('Public_sphere'),('Public_transport'),('Public_works'),('Public–private_partnership'),('Punch_line'),('Punishment'),('Purchasing_power_parity'),('Push-up'),('Pyramid'),('Qi'),('Qualitative_research'),('Quality_(philosophy)'),('Quality_of_life'),('Quality_of_service'),('Quantitative_research'),('Quantity'),('Queen_Victoria'),('Question_mark'),('Question_of_fact'),('Question_Time_(TV_series)'),('Quid_pro_quo'),('Race_(human_categorization)'),('Racial_integration'),('Racism'),('Radar'),('Radiation'),('Radicalism_(historical)'),('Radio-frequency_engineering'),('Radioactive_decay'),('Radioactive_waste'),('Railroad_tie'),('Rail_freight_transport'),('Rail_transport'),('Rail_transport_in_Italy'),('Rainer_Maria_Rilke'),('Raise_the_People'),('Random_variable'),('Rapeseed'),('Rapporteur'),('Ratification'),('Rationality'),('Raw_material'),('Ray-Ban'),('Reactionary'),('Reading_(legislature)'),('Reading_(process)'),('Reality'),('Real_property'),('Reason'),('Reasonable_person'),('Rebellion'),('Recession'),('Reconstruction_Agency'),('Reconstruction_Era'),('Reconstruction_in_Afghanistan'),('Recreational_drug_use'),('Recruitment'),('Rector_(academia)'),('Recycling'),('Redox'),('Reductionism'),('Reductio_ad_absurdum'),('Red_tape'),('Red–green_coalition_(Norway)'),('Referee'),('Reference'),('Reference_range'),('Referendum'),('Reformism'),('Reform_Judaism'),('Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council'),('Refugee'),('Refugee_law'),('Regional_planning'),('Regional_policy_of_the_European_Union'),('Regional_Railways'),('Regional_science'),('Region_(Europe)'),('Regulated_market'),('Regulation'),('Regulation_(European_Union)'),('Regulation_17'),('Reinforced_concrete'),('Reinforcement'),('Reinhard_Mey'),('Related_rights'),('Relativism'),('Relevant_market'),('Religion'),('Religious_conversion'),('Religious_persecution'),('Remuneration'),('Renaissance'),('Renewable_energy'),('Renewable_resource'),('Repeal'),('Representative_democracy'),('Reproductive_health'),('Reproductive_rights'),('Republic'),('Republicanism'),('Republicanism_in_the_United_States'),('Republic_of_Ireland'),('Republic_of_Macedonia'),('Request_for_tender'),('Requirements_engineering'),('Research'),('Research_and_development'),('Reseller'),('Reserve_requirement'),('Resolution_(law)'),('Resource'),('Respect'),('Respect_Party'),('Res_publica'),('Retirement'),('Retrograde_and_prograde_motion'),('Return_on_investment'),('Reuters'),('Revelation'),('Revenue'),('Rhetoric'),('Rhetorical_question'),('Rhodes'),('Ria_Oomen-Ruijten'),('Richard_Fletcher-Vane,_2nd_Baron_Inglewood'),('Richter_magnitude_scale'),('Right-wing_politics'),('Rights'),('Right_of_asylum'),('Right_of_initiative_(legislative)'),('Right_of_return'),('Right_to_a_fair_trial'),('Right_to_health'),('Right_to_housing'),('Right_to_silence'),('Right_to_work'),('Rise_Against'),('Risk'),('Risk_aversion'),('Risk_management'),('Road'),('Roadworthiness'),('Road_pricing'),('Road_traffic_safety'),('Road_transport'),('Robbery'),('Roberta_Angelilli'),('Robert_Brenner'),('Robert_Lucas,_Jr.'),('Robert_Schuman'),('Robin_Ganzert'),('Roland_Fraïssé'),('Romania'),('Romano_Prodi'),('Romanticism'),('Romeo_and_Juliet_(1968_film)'),('Rome_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Performers,_Producers_of_Phonograms_and_Broadcasting_Organisations'),('Ronald_Reagan'),('Rotary_International'),('Rothley'),('Round_Table'),('Royalty_payment'),('Royal_Commission_on_the_Historical_Monuments_of_England'),('Roy_Perry'),('Rubicon_(TV_series)'),('Rugby_football'),('Ruhr'),('Rule_of_law'),('Ruminant'),('Runway'),('Rural_area'),('Rural_sociology'),('Rush_hour'),('Russia'),('Russians'),('Russian_Empire'),('Russia_and_the_United_Nations'),('Russia–European_Union_relations'),('Ruth_Hieronymi'),('Rwanda'),('S-box'),('S-Oil'),('S-Plan'),('S/KEY'),('Sabena'),('Sacrifice'),('Saddam_Hussein'),('Safety'),('Safe_sex'),('Said_It_All'),('Saint_Petersburg'),('Salary'),('Sales'),('Salt'),('Salzburg_Cathedral'),('Same-sex_marriage'),('Sam_Radwan'),('Sanctions_(law)'),('Sanctions_against_Iraq'),('Sanctity_of_life'),('Santa_Maria_da_Feira'),('Sarah_Ludford,_Baroness_Ludford'),('Satan'),('Satellite'),('Satellite_navigation'),('Satisfy_You_(Puff_Daddy_song)'),('Saudi_Arabia'),('Saving'),('Say_It_Again_(Natasha_Bedingfield_song)'),('Scandinavia'),('Scarcity'),('Scarred_for_Life_(Rose_Tattoo_album)'),('Schema_(psychology)'),('Schengen_Agreement'),('Schengen_Area'),('Schengen_Information_System'),('Schizophrenia'),('Schnitzel'),('School'),('Science'),('Science,_Technology,_Engineering,_and_Mathematics'),('Science,_technology_and_society'),('Science_communication'),('Science_fiction'),('Scientific_method'),('Scientific_modelling'),('Scotland'),('Seal_(emblem)'),('Seattle'),('Seawater'),('Sea_level_rise'),('Secondary_education'),('Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution'),('Second_Life'),('Second_Polish_Republic'),('Second_Railway_Package'),('Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations'),('Securities_Act_of_1933'),('Security'),('Security_(finance)'),('Seed'),('Seismology'),('Self-awareness'),('Self-determination'),('Self-employment'),('Self-esteem'),('Self-help'),('Self-image'),('Self-sufficiency'),('Sellafield'),('Semantics'),('Semiotics'),('Semmering_Pass'),('Sense'),('Sentence_(law)'),('Seoul'),('Separation_of_church_and_state'),('Separation_of_powers'),('September_11_attacks'),('Serbia'),('Serbia_and_Montenegro'),('Service_(economics)'),('Set_(mathematics)'),('Sewage_treatment'),('Sexual_abuse'),('Sexual_harassment'),('Shadowboxing_(2005_film)'),('Shameless_(U.S._TV_series)'),('Shame_on_You_(Tomas_Thordarson_song)'),('Shame_on_You_(to_Keep_My_Love_from_Me)'),('Shape'),('Shareholder'),('Share_(finance)'),('She-goats'),('Sheep'),('Sheer_Heart_Attack'),('Shia_Islam'),('Shift_work'),('Shipwreck'),('Shire_(Middle-earth)'),('Shock_to_the_System_(Gemma_Hayes_song)'),('Short_Message_Service'),('Short_sea_shipping'),('Show_jumping'),('Sicily'),('Sign_language'),('Silvio_Berlusconi'),('Simple_contract'),('Simple_living'),('Sine_qua_non'),('Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs'),('Single_European_Act'),('Single_European_Sky'),('Single_market'),('Siphon'),('Skepticism'),('Skill'),('Slaughterhouse'),('Slavery'),('Sledgehammer_(Peter_Gabriel_song)'),('Sleeping_Beauty'),('Slippery_slope'),('Slovakia'),('Slovenia'),('Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises'),('Small_Island_Developing_States'),('Smoking'),('Smuggling'),('So-iuy_mullet'),('Socialism'),('Socialist_Party_(France)'),('Social_alienation'),('Social_change'),('Social_class'),('Social_conflict'),('Social_constructionism'),('Social_contract'),('Social_control'),('Social_democracy'),('Social_Democratic_Party_of_Austria'),('Social_equality'),('Social_exclusion'),('Social_group'),('Social_inequality'),('Social_influence'),('Social_integration'),('Social_issue'),('Social_justice'),('Social_market_economy'),('Social_movement'),('Social_network'),('Social_Partnership'),('Social_policy'),('Social_progress'),('Social_relation'),('Social_responsibility'),('Social_revolution'),('Social_science'),('Social_security'),('Social_skills'),('Social_status'),('Social_support'),('Social_system'),('Social_work'),('Society'),('Socioeconomics'),('Socrates'),('Socrates_programme'),('Software'),('Software_patent'),('Solar_energy'),('Solar_power'),('Solicitor'),('Solidarity'),('Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)'),('Somalia'),('Somali_Civil_War'),('Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer'),('Somethin_for_the_People'),('Somewhere_in_Europe_(song)'),('Some_Velvet_Sidewalk'),('Sonic_the_Hedgehog_4:_Episode_I'),('Soul'),('Sound_Document'),('Sound_film'),('Southeast_Asia'),('Southeast_Europe'),('Southern_Africa'),('Southern_Europe'),('Southern_Railway_(Austria)'),('Southern_Railway_(UK)'),('South_Africa'),('South_America'),('South_Korea'),('South_Tyrol'),('Sovereignty'),('Sovereign_immunity'),('Soviet_Union'),('Soybean'),('So_Far_So_Good_(Bryan_Adams_album)'),('So_Little_Time'),('Spain'),('Spanish_Empire'),('Spanish_language'),('Sparks_Fly_(song)'),('Speak_Now'),('Special_Accession_Programme_for_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development'),('Special_Council_of_Lower_Canada'),('Special_effect'),('Special_relativity'),('Spectacle_(critical_theory)'),('Speculation'),('Speech'),('Sphere_of_influence'),('Spielfeld'),('Spin_(propaganda)'),('Spirit'),('Spirit_(Leona_Lewis_album)'),('Sport'),('Squad'),('Squeeze_(band)'),('Stabilisation_and_Association_Process'),('Stability_and_Growth_Pact'),('Stability_Pact_for_South_Eastern_Europe'),('Stalinism'),('Stamp_duty'),('Standard-definition_television'),('Standard_of_living'),('Starting_pistol'),('Startup_company'),('START_I'),('Starvation'),('State_(polity)'),('State_of_emergency'),('State_of_Palestine'),('State_of_the_Union'),('State_ownership'),('State_religion'),('Statistics'),('Status_quo'),('Statute'),('Statutory_law'),('Steam_engine'),('Stefanie_Schwaiger'),('Stefano_Zappalà'),('Stefan_Leitl'),('Stem_cell'),('Step_on_It!_(film)'),('Stoa'),('Stock'),('Stockholm'),('Stockton,_California'),('Stock_exchange'),('Stock_market'),('Stone_Age'),('Straits_Air_Freight_Express'),('Strasbourg'),('Strategic_geography'),('Strategy'),('Stratum'),('Streaming_media'),('Stress_(biology)'),('Strict_liability'),('Strict_scrutiny'),('Strike_action'),('Stroke'),('Structuralism'),('Structural_abuse'),('Structural_functionalism'),('Structural_Funds_and_Cohesion_Fund'),('Structural_unemployment'),('Structure'),('Student'),('Styria'),('Sub-Saharan_Africa'),('Subjectivity'),('Subject_(philosophy)'),('Subsidiarity'),('Subsidiary_protection'),('Subsidy'),('Substance_abuse'),('Substance_theory'),('Substantial_form'),('Suburb'),('Suches_River'),('Such_Is_Life_(1936_film)'),('Sudan'),('Sudetenland'),('Suffering'),('Suffrage'),('Sugarcane'),('Sugar_beet'),('Suicide'),('Suicide_attack'),('Sulfur_dioxide'),('Summer_Holiday_(1948_film)'),('Sun'),('Sunderland,_Tyne_and_Wear'),('Sunglasses'),('Sunlight'),('Sunset_provision'),('Supermajority'),('Supermarket'),('Superpower'),('Superstate'),('Supply_and_demand'),('Supply_chain'),('Supranational_union'),('Supreme_court'),('Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States'),('Supreme_National_Security_Council'),('Surveillance'),('Survey_methodology'),('Sustainability'),('Sustainable_agriculture'),('Sustainable_development'),('Sustainable_energy'),('Sustainable_forest_management'),('Sustainable_tourism'),('Sustainable_transport'),('Swastika'),('Sweden'),('Swedish_language'),('Swiss_franc'),('Swiss_people'),('Switzerland'),('Swoop_(Australian_band)'),('Sylviane_Ainardi'),('Symbol'),('Sympathy'),('Synergy_(electricity_corporation)'),('Syria'),('System'),('Systems_engineering'),('S_chip'),('S_Voice'),('T.H.E._Cat'),('Table_for_Three'),('Tailings'),('Tajikistan'),('Take_Me_Home_(One_Direction_album)'),('Take_That'),('Taliban'),('Talking_shop'),('Tampere'),('Tanker_(ship)'),('Taos,_New_Mexico'),('Tariff'),('Taste_(sociology)'),('Tattoo'),('Tattoo_It'),('Tauern_Railway_Tunnel'),('Tax'),('Taxicab'),('Tax_avoidance'),('Tax_competition'),('Tax_deduction'),('Tax_evasion'),('Tax_exemption'),('Tax_harmonization'),('Tax_incidence'),('Tax_law'),('Tax_policy'),('Tax_rate'),('Tax_reform'),('Tax_revenue'),('Technical_drawing'),('Technical_group'),('Technical_support'),('Technocracy'),('Technological_change'),('Technological_convergence'),('Technology'),('Technology_transfer'),('Telecommunication'),('Teleology'),('Telephone_line'),('Telephono'),('Temelín'),('Temelín_Nuclear_Power_Station'),('Temperature'),('Tempo'),('Tenō'),('Territorial_principle'),('Terrorism'),('Tertiary_sector_of_the_economy'),('Testimony'),('Test_(assessment)'),('Textile'),('Thalys'),('Thanks_for_Listening'),('Thank_You_for_Everything'),('Thank_You_in_Advance'),('Theory'),('Theory_of_Forms'),('Theory_of_justification'),('Thessaloniki'),('The_****_of_the_Mothers'),('The_Also_People'),('The_Apple_Cart'),('The_Atlantic'),('The_A_Word'),('The_Bad_Examples'),('The_Batman_(TV_series)'),('The_Beatles_Christmas_records'),('The_Best_Bet'),('The_Big_Questions'),('The_Chain_(Buffy_comic)'),('The_Contributor_(LDS_magazine)'),('The_Conversion_(The_Outer_Limits)'),('The_Crystal_Method'),('The_Cure'),('The_Dalek_Invasion_of_Earth'),('The_Days_(song)'),('The_Day_After'),('The_Day_After_Tomorrow_(Maino_album)'),('The_Distance_(song)'),('The_Early_Show'),('The_Economist'),('The_Empty_Pockets'),('The_Glowing_Man'),('The_Greatest_Asset'),('The_Great_Impression'),('The_Great_Opportunity'),('The_Greens_–_The_Green_Alternative'),('The_Greens–European_Free_Alliance'),('The_Guardian'),('The_Hague'),('The_History_of_Sexuality'),('The_Holocaust'),('The_Last_Debate'),('The_Last_Outpost_(1951_film)'),('The_Last_Question'),('The_Last_Sitting'),('The_Lateness_of_the_Hour'),('The_Leftovers_(TV_series)'),('The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Wind_Waker'),('The_Memory_of_Trees'),('The_Motions_(Matthew_West_song)'),('The_Name_of_the_Game_(TV_series)'),('The_NeverEnding_Story_(film)'),('The_Not-Its!'),('The_Parting_of_the_Ways'),('The_Peace_Project'),('The_Place_Within'),('The_Plane_Makers'),('The_Pleased'),('The_Power_(Snap!_song)'),('The_Power_Is_On'),('The_Pressure_Is_On'),('The_Price_(Angel)'),('The_Principle_of_Hope'),('The_Rain_(Oran_&quotJuice&quot_Jones_song)'),('The_rich_get_richer_and_the_poor_get_poorer'),('The_Royal_Scam'),('The_Single_Standard'),('The_Strong_One_(Etana_album)'),('The_Suffering_of_God'),('The_T.O._Show'),('The_Tenors'),('The_Thing_to_Do_(album)'),('The_Tide_of_Traffic'),('The_Troubles'),('The_Unanswered_Question'),('The_Way_Ahead'),('The_We_and_the_I'),('The_Wonderbox'),('The_World_of_Null-A'),('Thierry_Cornillet'),('Think_globally,_act_locally'),('Third_World'),('This_Christmas_(Donny_Hathaway_song)'),('This_I_Believe'),('This_Just_In!'),('This_Morning_(TV_programme)'),('Thorsø,_Norway'),('Those_Were_the_Days_(song)'),('Thought'),('Three_Mile_Island_accident'),('Threshing'),('Thyroid_cancer'),('Tigermilk'),('Time'),('Times_Like_These_(song)'),('Time_(magazine)'),('Time_bomb'),('Time_Is_Running_Out_(Muse_song)'),('Time_Out_(magazine)'),('Timothy_Kirkhope'),('Title_(Meghan_Trainor_album)'),('Tobacco'),('Tobacco_advertising'),('Tobacco_smoking'),('Tobin_tax'),('Today_in_Parliament'),('Today_Is_the_Day'),('Together_for_Yes'),('Tokenism'),('Toleration'),('Toll_road'),('Tonio_Borg'),('Tonne'),('Tool'),('Too_Short'),('Top-level_domain'),('Topical_medication'),('Topography'),('Torture'),('Toto_(band)'),('Tourism'),('Toxic_heavy_metal'),('To_mislead_parliament'),('To_Tell_the_Truth'),('Tołwin'),('Traceability'),('Tractor'),('Trade'),('Trademark'),('Trade_barrier'),('Trade_union'),('Trade_war'),('Tradition'),('Traffic'),('Traffic_collision'),('Traffic_congestion'),('Tragedy'),('Train'),('Training'),('Training_package_(Australia)'),('Train_station'),('Trans-European_Networks'),('Trans-European_road_network'),('Transaction_cost'),('Transatlantic_relations'),('Transcaucasia'),('Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong'),('Transfer_pricing'),('Transhumance'),('Transit_Agreement_(1972)'),('Transparency_(behavior)'),('Transport'),('Transportation_of_animals'),('Transpose'),('Transposition_(law)'),('Transrapid'),('Travel'),('Treason'),('Treasure_trove'),('Treaty'),('Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe'),('Treaty_of_Nice'),('Treaty_of_Rome'),('Treehouse_of_Horror_VII'),('Trends_in_International_Mathematics_and_Science_Study'),('Trend_following'),('Trentino'),('Trespass'),('Trial'),('Tribunal'),('Tritium'),('Triumph_Heritage_Empowerment_Party'),('Tropical_cyclone'),('Trotskyism'),('Truck'),('Trust_(emotion)'),('Trust_law'),('Truth'),('Trygve_Lie'),('Tug_of_War_(Paul_McCartney_album)'),('Tunisia'),('Turkey'),('Turkish_language'),('Turkish_people'),('Turku'),('Turnover_(employment)'),('Tu_es_foutu'),('Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2008_(Ireland)'),('Two-stroke_engine'),('Two_in_a_Million'),('Two_of_Us_(2000_film)'),('Type_approval'),('Tyrol_(state)'),('U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission'),('UEAPME'),('Ukraine'),('Ukraine–European_Union_relations'),('Umbrella_organization'),('UMTS_(telecommunication)'),('Unanimity'),('Uncertainty'),('Unconquered'),('Understanding'),('Undertakings_for_Collective_Investment_in_Transferable_Securities_Directives'),('Unemployment'),('Unfair_business_practices'),('Unfair_competition'),('Unilateralism'),('Union_for_the_Mediterranean'),('Unitary_patent'),('Unitary_state'),('United_Kingdom'),('United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010'),('United_Nations'),('United_Nations_Charter'),('United_Nations_Economic_and_Social_Council'),('United_Nations_Interim_Administration_Mission_in_Kosovo'),('United_Nations_Security_Council'),('United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution'),('United_States'),('United_States_Congress'),('United_States_Constitution'),('United_States_Declaration_of_Independence'),('United_States_dollar'),('United_States_federal_civil_service'),('United_States_House_Committee_on_Agriculture'),('United_States_of_Europe'),('United_States–European_Union_relations'),('Unite_Us_All'),('Universal_bank'),('Universal_health_care'),('Universal_service'),('Universal_Service_Directive'),('Universe'),('University'),('University_of_Graz'),('University_of_Tübingen'),('Upper_Austria'),('Uranium'),('Urban_planning'),('Ursula_Stenzel'),('Urtica'),('Uruguay'),('Uruguay_Round'),('Usher_(singer)'),('Utilitarianism'),('Utility'),('Utopia'),('Vaccination'),('Vaccination_policy'),('Vaccine'),('Vacuum_tube'),('Vagueness'),('Valéry_Giscard_dEstaing'),('Value-added_tax'),('Value_(economics)'),('Value_(ethics)'),('Value_chain'),('Value_system'),('Variance'),('Variety_(botany)'),('Veal'),('Vegetable_oil'),('Vegetation'),('Vehicle'),('Venezuela'),('Venture_capital'),('Verdict'),('Vergangenheitsbewältigung'),('Vertex_cover'),('Vertical_restraints'),('Veterinary_medicine'),('Veto'),('Vexations'),('Vice-President_of_the_European_Commission'),('Victimisation'),('Videoconferencing'),('Video_game'),('Vienna'),('Vienna_International_Airport'),('Vigilio_Fait'),('Vigo'),('Viktor_Klima'),('Vine'),('Violence'),('Violent_crime'),('Violin'),('Virtual_machine'),('Virtue'),('Virus'),('Visa_(document)'),('Visual_arts'),('Vitalism'),('Vitamin'),('Viticulture'),('Vive_La_Différence!'),('Viviane_Reding'),('Vocation'),('Vocational_education'),('Voices_of_Animals_and_Men'),('Voltage'),('Voluntary_association'),('Voluntary_commitment'),('Volunteering'),('Voter_turnout'),('Vote_splitting'),('Voting'),('Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union'),('Voting_system'),('Voyagers!'),('Waffle'),('Wage'),('War'),('Ward_Beysen'),('Waris_Dirie'),('Warlord'),('War_crime'),('War_of_aggression'),('War_on_Poverty'),('War_on_Terror'),('Washington,_D.C.'),('Waste'),('Waste_management'),('Waste_management_law'),('Waste_sorting'),('Water'),('Waterway'),('Water_conservation'),('Water_pollution'),('Water_quality'),('Water_resources'),('Water_resource_management'),('Water_security'),('Water_supply'),('Watt'),('Weakest_Link'),('Wealth'),('Weaning'),('Weapon'),('Weapon_of_mass_destruction'),('Web_page'),('Web_search_engine'),('Weirdsister_College'),('Welcome_sign'),('Welcome_to_Europe'),('Welfare'),('Wels'),('Werner_Langen'),('Western_culture'),('Western_Europe'),('Western_world'),('We_are_fed_up'),('We_Are_One:_The_Obama_Inaugural_Celebration_at_the_Lincoln_Memorial'),('We_Few'),('We_in_Here'),('What_Are_Words'),('What_Is_to_Be_Done?'),('What_Would_You_Do?_(game_show)'),('Wheelchair'),('When_All_Is_Said_and_Done'),('When_We_On'),('Where_I_Come_From_(Alan_Jackson_song)'),('Where_I_Come_From_(album)'),('Where_We_Stand'),('While_You_Were_Out_(album)'),('White_Council'),('White_House'),('White_paper'),('White_people'),('Who_Dares_Wins_(album)'),('Wiener_Schnitzel'),('Wildlife'),('Will_and_testament'),('Wim_Duisenberg'),('Wind_power'),('Wine'),('Winemaking'),('WIPO_Copyright_Treaty'),('Wisconsin_Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod'),('Wisdom'),('With_All_Due_Respect_(TV_series)'),('With_or_Without_You'),('Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart'),('Wolfgang_Schüssel'),('Woman'),('Womens_rights'),('Wood'),('Woodland'),('Wood_industry'),('Word'),('Workforce'),('Working_class'),('Working_time'),('Work_of_art'),('Work_permit'),('World'),('World_Bank'),('World_Conference_against_Racism_2001'),('World_Conference_on_Human_Rights'),('World_Economic_Forum'),('World_economy'),('World_energy_consumption'),('World_Food_Programme'),('World_Food_Summit'),('World_Health_Organization'),('World_Intellectual_Property_Organization'),('World_population'),('World_Social_Forum'),('World_Trade_Center_(1973–2001)'),('World_Trade_Organization'),('World_view'),('World_war'),('World_War_I'),('World_War_II'),('Worn_Thin'),('WPPT'),('Wrestling'),('Writ'),('Writing'),('Wrongdoing'),('Xenophobia'),('Y&ampT'),('Yalta_Conference'),('Yasser_Arafat'),('Yasser_Radwan'),('Yesterday_(TV_channel)'),('Yes_and_no'),('Yonhap'),('Young_and_Beautiful_(Lana_Del_Rey_song)'),('Your_Itinerary'),('Youth'),('Youth_unemployment'),('You_and_I_(Lady_Gaga_song)'),('You_Live_and_Learn'),('Yugoslavia'),('Yugoslav_Wars'),('Zagreb'),('Zbigniew_Brzezinski'),('Zero-rating'),('Zero_tolerance'),('Zimbabwe'),('Zionism'),('Zoo'),('Zorba_(musical)'),('Zürich'),('Zürich_Airport');
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `entity` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;

--
-- Table structure for table `entityselectionannotation`
--

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `entityselectionannotation`;
/*!40101 SET @saved_cs_client     = @@character_set_client */;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = utf8 */;
CREATE TABLE `entityselectionannotation` (
  `documentid` varchar(45) NOT NULL,
  `entitytitle` varchar(200) NOT NULL,
  `Rank` varchar(45) DEFAULT NULL,
  `userusername` varchar(127) NOT NULL,
  `Timestamp` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
  PRIMARY KEY (`documentid`,`entitytitle`,`userusername`),
  KEY `fk_Annotation_Entity1_idx` (`entitytitle`),
  KEY `fk_Annotation_User1_idx` (`userusername`),
  CONSTRAINT `fk_Annotation_Email1` FOREIGN KEY (`documentid`) REFERENCES `document` (`Id`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION,
  CONSTRAINT `fk_Annotation_Entity1` FOREIGN KEY (`entitytitle`) REFERENCES `entity` (`Title`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION,
  CONSTRAINT `fk_Annotation_User1` FOREIGN KEY (`userusername`) REFERENCES `user` (`Username`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = @saved_cs_client */;

--
-- Dumping data for table `entityselectionannotation`
--

LOCK TABLES `entityselectionannotation` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `entityselectionannotation` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `entityselectionannotation` VALUES ('1001106.txt','All_for_This','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','A_New_Beginning','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Committee','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','For_but_not_with','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Fraud','2','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Gertrude_Tumpel-Gugerell','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Individual','3','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','International_relations','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Kyoto_Protocol','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Management','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Moral_responsibility','1','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Sabena','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Strike_action','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','Theory_of_justification','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001106.txt','World_Trade_Organization','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:29:55'),('1001110.txt','Austria','1','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','A_Rush_of_Blood_to_the_Head','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Big_Brother_(TV_series)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Brand_piracy','2','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Copenhagen','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Counterfeit','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Information_system','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Infrastructure','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','I_Hold_On','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Legal_certainty','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Panacea_(medicine)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Prejudice','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','President_of_the_European_Parliament','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Rothley','3','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('1001110.txt','Treehouse_of_Horror_VII','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:20:18'),('100112.txt','Artificial_intelligence','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Civil_and_political_rights','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Commercial_law','3','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Critical_theory','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Economics','4','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Free_trade','2','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Free_trade_area','5','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Legal_certainty','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','List_of_national_legal_systems','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Nation_state','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Neil_MacCormick','1','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Poverty','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Scientific_method','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Strike_action','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('100112.txt','Trade_union','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:19:42'),('1001123.txt','Afghanistan','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Economics','1','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','El_Señor_Presidente','3','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Employment','2','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Good_and_evil','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Independence','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Iran','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Iraq','4','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Military','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Multinational_corporation','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','North_Korea','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Taliban','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Tax_revenue','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','The_Guardian','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001123.txt','Youth','5','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:57'),('1001128.txt','Bank_charge','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Dialogue','4','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Economic_inequality','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Employment','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Hierarchy','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Idea','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','International_relations','3','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Latin','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Latin_America','1','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Necessity','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Presidency_of_George_W._Bush','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Prosecutor','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','Rights','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','South_America','2','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001128.txt','United_States','0','fnanni','2016-07-22 09:18:31'),('1001148.txt','Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Duty','3','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Europe','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Freedom_of_speech','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Institutions_of_the_European_Union','2','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Judicial_review','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Majority','4','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Member_of_the_European_Parliament','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Nordic_countries','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','No_Exit','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Representative_democracy','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Rights','5','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Sweden','1','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','United_States_Declaration_of_Independence','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001148.txt','Utility','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:12'),('1001168.txt','As_It_Is_(band)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Bank','1','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Bank_charge','3','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Cheque','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Euro','2','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Financial_institution','5','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Group_cohesiveness','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Interest_rate','4','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','John_Favour','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Law','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Mr._President_(musical)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Objectivity_(philosophy)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','Poverty','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','When_We_On','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001168.txt','White_paper','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:35:27'),('1001203.txt','Armenia','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','A_Must_to_Avoid','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Excise','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Fossil_fuel','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','John_Favour','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Micro_combined_heat_and_power','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Natural_gas','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','New_Silk_Route','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Nuclear_power','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Oil_reserves','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Pricing','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Referee','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Resource','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('1001203.txt','Transcaucasia','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:10:30'),('100122.txt','Bank_reserves','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Economics','2','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Economic_indicator','3','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Economy_of_Europe','1','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Forward_contract','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Government_spending','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Intelligence','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Person','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Price_of_oil','4','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Profit_(accounting)','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','S-Plan','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Stock','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Tax_incidence','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Tax_rate','5','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('100122.txt','Utility','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:30:21'),('1001239.txt','Begging_the_question','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Denmark','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','European_integration','3','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Gothenburg','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Great_Britain','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Identity_(social_science)','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Information','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Ireland','2','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','LEADER_programme','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','National_parliaments_of_the_European_Union','4','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Nature','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Referendum','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Sustainability','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001239.txt','Treaty_of_Nice','1','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:17:17'),('1001242.txt','Basic_research','1','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Conscience','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Consumer_protection','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Embryo','3','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Ethics','2','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','European_Atomic_Energy_Community','4','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','European_integration','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Hierarchy','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Human','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Let_It_Be','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Neoplatonism','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Proposition','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Stem_cell','5','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001242.txt','Xenophobia','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:17:26'),('1001276.txt','Accounting','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Competition_(economics)','3','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Copyright','1','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','European_Economic_Area','4','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','European_Peoples_Party','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Fossil_fuel','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Intangible_asset','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Mind','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Patent_application','2','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Policy','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Subsidiarity','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','System','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Tax','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Trademark','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001276.txt','Unitary_patent','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:52:11'),('1001289.txt','Balance_sheet','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Cloven_hoof','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Collectivism','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','European_Union','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Freedom_of_religion','1','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Grenoble','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Moral_responsibility','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Opera','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Satan','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Show_jumping','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Stress_(biology)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Taxicab','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','The_Batman_(TV_series)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Unemployment','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001289.txt','Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 15:51:17'),('1001304.txt','Beneš_decrees','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Brussels','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Copenhagen','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Czech_Republic','1','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','European_Union','5','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Innovation','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Marielle_de_Sarnez','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Nuclear_power','4','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Representative_democracy','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Stress_(biology)','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Temelín_Nuclear_Power_Station','3','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','The_A_Word','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Vigilio_Fait','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','Western_Europe','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('1001304.txt','World_War_II','2','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:26:50'),('10015.txt','Directive_(European_Union)','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','El_Señor_Presidente','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Equal_opportunity','2','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Feminism','1','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Gender','5','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Human_rights','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Institutions_of_the_European_Union','3','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','I_Have_Nothing','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Jacques_Santer','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Parliamentary_system','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Policy','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Regulation','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Right-wing_politics','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Sheer_Heart_Attack','0','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('10015.txt','Tokenism','4','pruizfabo','2016-07-17 20:16:45'),('100150.txt','Agnes_Schierhuber','1','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Agriculture','2','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Cancún','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Contract','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Correlation_and_dependence','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Economic_development','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Human_trafficking','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','John_Favour','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Law','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Market_economy','3','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Nation','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Object_(philosophy)','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Partnership','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','System','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100150.txt','Tonne','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 18:18:02'),('100214.txt','Communication','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','David_Martin_(Scottish_politician)','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Democracy','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Dictatorship','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','European_Parliament','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Faith','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Good_governance','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Hannes_Swoboda','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Idea','3','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Justice','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Paternalism','2','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Supranational_union','1','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Technocracy','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Tempo','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100214.txt','Transparency_(behavior)','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:10:10'),('100217.txt','Genoa','2','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Immigration_policy','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Institution','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Irreligion','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Italian_language','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Kingdom_of_Italy','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Law_enforcement_in_Italy','3','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Nation','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Nazi_symbolism','1','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Opium','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Police_brutality','4','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Prison','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Psychological_trauma','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Right-wing_politics','5','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100217.txt','Sexual_harassment','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 14:56:42'),('100219.txt','American_Civil_War','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Balance_of_payments','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Bethlehem','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Experience','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Fiscal_year','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Funicular','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Government_spending','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Gross_domestic_product','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Hyperinflation','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Invisible_balance','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Mr._President_(title)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Parliament','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Post-Soviet_states','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','Tajikistan','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100219.txt','The_Also_People','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:14:26'),('100278.txt','Attention','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Communism','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Energy','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','German_Empire','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','History_of_the_European_Union','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Matter_(philosophy)','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Motion_(physics)','2','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Mrs._Pack','5','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Proverb','4','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Qualitative_research','1','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Quantitative_research','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Social_influence','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Socrates','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','Unemployment','3','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100278.txt','You_Live_and_Learn','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:16'),('100281.txt','BBC_News','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Biofuel','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Copyright_Directive','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','European_Patent_Convention','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','European_Patent_Office','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Invention','3','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','In_Your_Words','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Mr._President_(musical)','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Patent','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Power_(social_and_political)','2','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Regional_policy_of_the_European_Union','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Software_patent','1','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Technical_drawing','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Thought','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('100281.txt','Tool','0','FraserDall','2016-07-14 10:37:04'),('1004123.txt','Albania','4','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Balkans','2','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Chairman-in-Office','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Economics','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Economic_policy','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','European_Agency_for_Reconstruction','1','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Flood','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Forestry','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Gibraltar','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Internal_audit','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Matter','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Pristina','5','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','Stabilisation_and_Association_Process','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004123.txt','United_Nations_Interim_Administration_Mission_in_Kosovo','3','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:21:28'),('1004142.txt','Consumerism','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Economic_growth','1','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Enlargement_of_the_European_Union','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Euro','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Fiscal_policy','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','God','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Information_and_communications_technology','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Labour_law','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Lisbon','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Organization','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Social_market_economy','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','The_Greens_–_The_Green_Alternative','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Unemployment','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('1004142.txt','Working_time','0','j.vaneijnatten@uu.nl','2016-07-14 10:44:14'),('100416.txt','Adoption','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Belgium','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Black_hole','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Criminal_procedure','3','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Decision-making','4','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Democracy','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Environmental_policy','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','European_Arrest_Warrant','2','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','European_Parliament','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','European_Union','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Human_rights_in_Europe','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Idea','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Ideology','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','International_Labour_Organization','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Irreligion','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Law','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Legitimacy_(political)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Moral_responsibility','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Nation_state','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Pillarisation','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','President_of_the_European_Commission','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Protest','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Question_of_fact','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Rector_(academia)','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Single_European_Act','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Spanish_Empire','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Supranational_union','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Terrorism','1','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','Toleration','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('100416.txt','White_paper','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 10:19:20'),('1004183.txt','Communication','1','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Democracy','4','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Email','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Enlargement_of_the_European_Union','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','European_Union','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Information_society','2','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Krista_van_Velzen','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Labour_economics','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Mobile_phone','3','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Mr._President_(title)','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','New_media','5','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Privatization','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Probability','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Short_Message_Service','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004183.txt','Social_responsibility','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:32:06'),('1004206.txt','Crusades','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','David_Hume','3','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','European_Commissioner','1','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','European_Parliament','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','European_Union_legislative_procedure','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Internal_market','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Jurisdiction','5','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Lisbon','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Lisbon_Strategy','4','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Maxim_(philosophy)','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Mr._President_(title)','2','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Stability_and_Growth_Pact','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Treaty','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Value-added_tax','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004206.txt','Water_pollution','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:21'),('1004219.txt','Advertising','3','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Alcohol','2','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Auto_racing','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Competition_law','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Direct_democracy','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','East_Timor','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Finance','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Market_economy','1','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Mr._President_(band)','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Principle','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Problem_solving','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Product_(business)','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Tax','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Tractor','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004219.txt','Voices_of_Animals_and_Men','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:28:14'),('1004288.txt','Bankruptcy','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Basel','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Credit_rating','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Economics','3','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Erkki_Liikanen','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','European_Commissioner','4','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Frits_Bolkestein','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Necessity','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Pascal_Lamy','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Person','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Philippe_Busquin','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Regulation','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Romano_Prodi','2','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','Trade','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004288.txt','World_Trade_Organization','1','fnanni','2016-07-13 09:46:48'),('1004302.txt','Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Ankara','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Bülent_Ecevit','3','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Democracy','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','European_Parliament','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','European_Union','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Euroscepticism','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Fundamentalism','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Human_rights','2','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Iranian_Revolution','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Islamic_fundamentalism','5','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(1978–present)','1','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Kurdistan_Workers_Party','4','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Risk','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004302.txt','Trotskyism','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:25:36'),('1004317.txt','Accidents_Happen','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Biometrics','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Chernobyl_disaster','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Financial_services','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Income_tax','4','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Labour_economics','3','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Labour_law','2','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Pension','5','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Proposition','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Social_security','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Stockholm','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Strasbourg','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Tax','1','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','Treaty','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004317.txt','UMTS_(telecommunication)','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:20:17'),('1004344.txt','Biostatistics','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Capital_market','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Contract','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Directive_on_services_in_the_internal_market','4','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Employment','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Institutions_for_Occupational_Retirement_Provision_Directive','2','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Parliamentary_procedure','1','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Pension','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Price','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Regulation','3','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Social_security','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Spanish_language','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Strike_action','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','Tax_harmonization','5','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004344.txt','United_States_House_Committee_on_Agriculture','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:21:09'),('1004355.txt','Agenda_2000','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Agriculture','1','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Common_Agricultural_Policy','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Consumer_confidence','4','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Data','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Food_safety','3','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Forestry','5','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Immigration_policy','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Internal_market','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Labour_economics','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Neolithic_Revolution','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Principle','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Rapporteur','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Social_group','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004355.txt','Sustainable_development','2','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:20:12'),('1004374.txt','Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Beneš_decrees','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Civil_law_(legal_system)','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Competition_law','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Cultural_area','1','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Development_aid','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Foreign_policy','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','German_Empire','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Habitat','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Judgement','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Law','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Mr._President_(title)','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Relevant_market','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','Teleology','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('1004374.txt','World_view','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:25:45'),('10044.txt','Duty','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Enlargement_of_the_European_Union','2','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','European_Convention_on_Human_Rights','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs','1','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Fuel_tax','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Kosovo','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Matter_(philosophy)','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','May_Day','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Member_state_of_the_European_Union','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Observation','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Persuasion','3','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Propaganda','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Referendum','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Self-esteem','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('10044.txt','Treaty_of_Nice','4','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:26:18'),('1004403.txt','Bankruptcy','5','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Because_We_Want_To','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Construction','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Construction','1','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Economic_system','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Economic_system','4','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Electrical_ballast','2','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Electrical_ballast','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Government','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Industry','5','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Industry','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Liberalization','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Magnetism','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Magnetism','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Manufacturing','4','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Manufacturing','2','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Mr._President_(band)','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Quantity','3','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Quantity','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Referendum','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Regulation','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Research','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Research','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Return_on_investment','1','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Return_on_investment','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Risk_management','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Sarah_Ludford,_Baroness_Ludford','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('1004403.txt','Suicide','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Urban_planning','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:29:47'),('1004403.txt','Urban_planning','3','gethia','2016-07-19 12:09:47'),('100442.txt','Chlorofluorocarbon','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Decision-making','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Dickie_Goodman','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Human_trafficking','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Idea','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Illegal_drug_trade','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Michel_Théato','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Money_laundering','1','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Mr._President_(band)','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Pragmatism','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Predicate_(mathematical_logic)','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Profession','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Risk','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','Software','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('100442.txt','The_Day_After','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:56:59'),('1004425.txt','Basel_II','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Business','1','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Cancún','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Decision-making','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Economics','3','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Economic_development','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Health','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','History_of_Europe','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Legal_personality','2','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Road','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','State_(polity)','5','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','War','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Water_pollution','4','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004425.txt','Will_and_testament','0','gethia','2016-07-19 12:10:05'),('1004470.txt','Advertising','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Blueprint','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Code_of_conduct','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','DigitalEurope','2','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Digital_television','1','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Human','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Information_society','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','International_Monetary_Fund','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Portuguese_language','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','President_of_Portugal','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Regulation','4','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','State_(polity)','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Sustainability','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Sweden','0','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004470.txt','Telecommunication','3','fnanni','2016-07-14 08:55:13'),('1004491.txt','Accessibility','3','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Austrian_School','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Curvature','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Economics','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Employment','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','European_Peoples_Party_Group','4','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Figure_17','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Multiview_orthographic_projection','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Murphys_law','1','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Objectivity_(philosophy)','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Please_Twins!','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Public_transport','2','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Rush_hour','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','Sicily','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004491.txt','World_Health_Organization','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:09:39'),('1004533.txt','Board_of_directors','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','European_Union','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Institution','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Is_There_for_Honest_Poverty','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','John_Favour','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Law','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Legal_personality','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Library','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Management','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Parliament','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Politics','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Public_administration','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Question_of_fact','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Social_change','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004533.txt','Voting','0','jenifap','2016-07-26 19:09:59'),('1004534.txt','Bratislava','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Budapest','4','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Counterfeit','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Danube','2','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Idea','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Mr._President_(title)','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Multi-junction_solar_cell','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Napster','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Persuasion','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Rail_transport','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Slovakia','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Transport','3','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Transrapid','1','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Vienna','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004534.txt','Workforce','0','fnanni','2016-07-20 12:27:19'),('1004552.txt','Background_independence','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Bank','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Coherentism','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Collateral_(finance)','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Common_law','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Conglomerate_(company)','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Creditors_rights','1','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','European_Union','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Insolvency_Regulation_(EC)_1346/2000','2','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Insurance','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Karla_Peijs','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Liquidation','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Member_state_of_the_European_Union','3','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','The_Best_Bet','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004552.txt','Tradition','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:23:37'),('1004553.txt','Bratislava_1','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Economy','1','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Elections_to_the_European_Parliament','3','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Eurozone','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','God_Forbid','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Group_cohesiveness','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Head_of_state','2','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Laconic_phrase','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Problem_solving','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Risk','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Social_class','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Social_market_economy','4','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','The_Crystal_Method','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','Transposition_(law)','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004553.txt','United_Kingdom','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:14:58'),('1004576.txt','Activism','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Aristotelis_Korakas','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Class_conflict','5','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Computer_network','1','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Europeanisation','4','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Federalism','3','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Guerrilla_warfare','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Justice','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Labour_economics','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','NATO','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Parliament','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Refugee','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Subsidiarity','2','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','The_Tenors','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004576.txt','Time_bomb','0','anlausch','2016-08-15 09:03:48'),('1004579.txt','Biodiesel','3','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Biofuel','4','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Dickie_Goodman','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development','1','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Fossil','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Gasoline','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Hugh_Grant','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Large_goods_vehicle','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Manufacturing','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Mr._President_(title)','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Raw_material','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Renewable_resource','5','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','Tax_exemption','2','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','United_States_Declaration_of_Independence','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004579.txt','War','0','fnanni','2016-08-02 14:18:47'),('1004588.txt','Advocacy_group','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Business','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Chairman-in-Office','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Communication','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Education','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','European_Parliament','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Financial_endowment','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Luxembourg','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Mass_media','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Non-governmental_organization','3','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Politics','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','President_of_the_United_States','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Spanish_language','2','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe','0','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004588.txt','World_Trade_Organization','1','fnanni','2016-07-13 18:47:59'),('1004590.txt','Best_practice','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Bonn','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','European_Commission','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','European_Patent_Office','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Goal','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Great_St_Bernard_Pass','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Incentive','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','International_Labour_Organization','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Least_developed_country','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Legal_personality','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Manufacturing','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Occupational_stress','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Scientific_method','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Supply_chain','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004590.txt','Wage','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:54:36'),('1004610.txt','Absolute_monarchy','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Calvados_(department)','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Coherentism','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Dickie_Goodman','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','European_Union','1','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Fundamentalism','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Government_of_Austria','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Israel','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Land_mine','3','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Mining','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Ottawa','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Ottawa_Treaty','2','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Persuasion','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','The_Contributor_(LDS_magazine)','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004610.txt','Today_in_Parliament','0','anlausch','2016-07-28 13:16:56'),('1004614.txt','Anti-social_behaviour','3','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Auction','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Autonomy','2','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','B._F._Skinner','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Currency_competition','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Directive_(European_Union)','5','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Farce','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(1978–present)','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Meaning_of_life','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Member_of_the_European_Parliament','4','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Risk_management','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Subsidiarity','1','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Tractor','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Trust_law','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('1004614.txt','Youth_unemployment','0','anlausch','2016-07-29 11:13:32'),('100463.txt','Agriculture','1','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Common_Agricultural_Policy','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Entrepreneurship','3','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Farmer','4','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Food','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Francis_of_Assisi','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Guillaume_Garot','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Income','2','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Liberalism','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Life','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Norm_(social)','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Person','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Radiation','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Social_status','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10'),('100463.txt','Wage','0','laura-dietz','2016-07-13 09:59:10');
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `entityselectionannotation` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;

--
-- Table structure for table `mv_tfidf`
--

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `mv_tfidf`;
/*!40101 SET @saved_cs_client     = @@character_set_client */;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = utf8 */;
CREATE TABLE `mv_tfidf` (
  `tfidf` double DEFAULT NULL,
  `idf` double DEFAULT NULL,
  `nodocs` bigint(21) DEFAULT NULL,
  `entitytitle` varchar(200) DEFAULT NULL,
  `df` bigint(21) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `tf` bigint(21) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `documentid` varchar(45) DEFAULT NULL,
  `documentcontent` mediumtext,
  `documentoriginal` mediumtext
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = @saved_cs_client */;

--
-- Dumping data for table `mv_tfidf`
--

LOCK TABLES `mv_tfidf` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `mv_tfidf` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'...And_a_Happy_New_Year',1,1,'1004237.txt','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'...Like_Clockwork',1,1,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'...To_Skin_a_Cat',1,1,'10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'1,000,000,000',1,1,'1004429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'1973_oil_crisis',3,2,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'1973_oil_crisis',3,1,'100115.txt','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'1973_oil_crisis',3,1,'1001277.txt','Mr President, this is actually the third oil crisis we have had, but it contrasts sharply with the other two. They were political crises of man-made origin, and they came about in 1973 and 1979 with the fall of the Shah regime. For fifteen years now there have clear indications and studies – for example, Global 2000, the report compiled for Jimmy Carter – to the effect that there would be a real shortage in raw materials by the turn of the century. In other words, the third oil crisis we are experiencing now, is here to stay. Whether the price drops again in the short term is of no consequence because there will be a steady upward trend in the long term. It even says in Colin Campbell’s study – anyone interested in having a copy can get one from me – that there will be a shortage of raw materials, i.e. oil, in the early years of the 21st century, the reason being that the production curve has passed its peak. I therefore believe that even demonstrations are onto a loser, because you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon. We will still have oil, but it will not come cheap. In other words, the price of oil will rise to between USD 40 and 60 in the future. There are enough studies to this effect. Even if they should prove to be wrong, now is the time to consider and analyse them. Nor is it an OPEC crisis, because only 40% of the oil produced comes from OPEC countries the remaining 60% comes from non-OPEC countries. If this was just a man-made crisis, the other oil producers could redress the balance.','Mr President, this is actually the third oil crisis we have had, but it contrasts sharply with the other two. They were political crises of man-made origin, and they came about in 1973 and 1979 with the fall of the Shah regime. For fifteen years now there have clear indications and studies – for example, Global 2000, the report compiled for Jimmy Carter – to the effect that there would be a real shortage in raw materials by the turn of the century. In other words, the third oil crisis we are experiencing now, is here to stay. Whether the price drops again in the short term is of no consequence because there will be a steady upward trend in the long term. It even says in Colin Campbell’s study – anyone interested in having a copy can get one from me – that there will be a shortage of raw materials, i.e. oil, in the early years of the 21st century, the reason being that the production curve has passed its peak. I therefore believe that even demonstrations are onto a loser, because you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon. We will still have oil, but it will not come cheap. In other words, the price of oil will rise to between USD 40 and 60 in the future. There are enough studies to this effect. Even if they should prove to be wrong, now is the time to consider and analyse them. Nor is it an OPEC crisis, because only 40% of the oil produced comes from OPEC countries; the remaining 60% comes from non-OPEC countries. If this was just a man-made crisis, the other oil producers could redress the balance.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'1979_energy_crisis',1,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'2000_in_Austria',1,1,'100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'2000_Today',1,1,'1004244.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'2003_in_Luxembourg',1,1,'1004474.txt','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'2007_Africa–EU_Summit',1,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'2008_Andean_diplomatic_crisis',1,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference',1,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'2013_enlargement_of_the_European_Union',1,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'5_euro_note',1,1,'1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'7_July_2005_London_bombings',1,1,'1004204.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to tell you that a lady who works with me has been attacked and beaten up at the railway station, and that the security situation has not improved.','Mr President, I just wanted to tell you that a lady who works with me has been attacked and beaten up at the railway station, and that the security situation has not improved.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'A-not-A_question',2,1,'100147.txt','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'A-not-A_question',2,1,'1004356.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg; instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A1_(Croatia)',1,1,'1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Aaron_Wildavsky',2,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Aaron_Wildavsky',2,1,'1004365.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Abdominal_pain',1,1,'100231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Abdul_Qadir_(Afghan_leader)',1,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Abettor',1,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Abortion',1,1,'1004132.txt','Mr President, I would like to put another question to the Commission. Are there programmes designed to support women who do not want to have an abortion?','Mr President, I would like to put another question to the Commission. Are there programmes designed to support women who do not want to have an abortion?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Abortion-rights_movements',1,1,'1004132.txt','Mr President, I would like to put another question to the Commission. Are there programmes designed to support women who do not want to have an abortion?','Mr President, I would like to put another question to the Commission. Are there programmes designed to support women who do not want to have an abortion?'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Absolute_monarchy',5,1,'1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Absolute_monarchy',5,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Absolute_monarchy',5,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Absolute_monarchy',5,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Absolute_monarchy',5,1,'1004610.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Abstention',2,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Abstention',2,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Abstract_and_concrete',7,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Abstract_and_concrete',7,1,'1001269.txt','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim less is more. Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim \"less is more\". Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens; the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Abstract_and_concrete',7,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Abstract_and_concrete',7,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Abstract_and_concrete',7,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Abstract_and_concrete',7,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Abstract_and_concrete',7,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Academic_degree',1,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Accessibility',1,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,1,'100175.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.'),(14.131592104934754,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,3,'1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,1,'1004574.txt','Mr President, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, ladies and gentlemen, corruption is an issue of significance in some countries desirous of joining the EU, and we are currently engaging in accession negotiations with them. Funds gained by privatisation have often disappeared from these countries in a questionable manner. Do you believe it would be possible to resolve these issues within the framework of accession negotiations, or at least to apply unambiguous legal provisions in this area?','Mr President, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, ladies and gentlemen, corruption is an issue of significance in some countries desirous of joining the EU, and we are currently engaging in accession negotiations with them. Funds gained by privatisation have often disappeared from these countries in a questionable manner. Do you believe it would be possible to resolve these issues within the framework of accession negotiations, or at least to apply unambiguous legal provisions in this area?'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union',9,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Access_network',1,1,'1004389.txt','I support the entire telecommunications package because it has many strengths. Due to the constantly increasing demand for frequencies, whether it be from communication networks, radio, traffic, the police, the armed forces and science, a coordinated action in Europe in international competition is simply essential. Harmonisation at EU-level is generally helping to create a continental market that can totally hold its own against US competitors. Furthermore, I would like to mention the increased process of administrative simplification – eight acts were created out of a total of twenty – which is a thoroughly positive development. Rules of competition will be the most important instrument used to regulate the market for electronic communications. Until genuine competition can take place on the market, clearer criteria with regard to regulatory intervention and more precise limits and conditions for allocating obligations regarding the granting of access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks are necessary. Therefore, I expressly welcome Mr Brunetta’s report, which proposes reasonable obligations for the operator and stresses that prior regulations should be repealed as soon as the aims pursued have been achieved via market mechanisms. Such interventions will be necessary so long as the former monopoly holders, who still provide the most connections, exist. The meagre resources, controlled by one or a few of the operators, for example the local access network in telecommunications, are currently yet another obstruction to competition.','I support the entire telecommunications package because it has many strengths. Due to the constantly increasing demand for frequencies, whether it be from communication networks, radio, traffic, the police, the armed forces and science, a coordinated action in Europe in international competition is simply essential. Harmonisation at EU-level is generally helping to create a continental market that can totally hold its own against US competitors. Furthermore, I would like to mention the increased process of administrative simplification – eight acts were created out of a total of twenty – which is a thoroughly positive development. Rules of competition will be the most important instrument used to regulate the market for electronic communications. Until genuine competition can take place on the market, clearer criteria with regard to regulatory intervention and more precise limits and conditions for allocating obligations regarding the granting of access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks are necessary. Therefore, I expressly welcome Mr Brunetta’s report, which proposes reasonable obligations for the operator and stresses that prior regulations should be repealed as soon as the aims pursued have been achieved via market mechanisms. Such interventions will be necessary so long as the former monopoly holders, who still provide the most connections, exist. The meagre resources, controlled by one or a few of the operators, for example the local access network in telecommunications, are currently yet another obstruction to competition.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Access_to_finance',1,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Accidents_Happen',1,1,'1004488.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best  practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?','Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best  practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Accountability',1,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'100171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State; how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified; if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004165.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004527.txt','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004568.txt','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Accounting',21,1,'1004632.txt','Mr President, this part contradicts a resolution already adopted by this House on the liberal professions. I therefore ask that it be amended along the lines we have already agreed to, so that the oral amendment would read: ‘Considers that the Commission should not only take account of the market situation in applying the provisions of competition law to the liberal professions, but must also bear in mind the social aspects and tasks in the public interest. Calls therefore on the Commission to allow associations of the liberal professions the discretion to take measures to permit them to perform their functions correctly.’','Mr President, this part contradicts a resolution already adopted by this House on the liberal professions. I therefore ask that it be amended along the lines we have already agreed to, so that the oral amendment would read: ‘Considers that the Commission should not only take account of the market situation in applying the provisions of competition law to the liberal professions, but must also bear in mind the social aspects and tasks in the public interest. Calls therefore on the Commission to allow associations of the liberal professions the discretion to take measures to permit them to perform their functions correctly.’'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Acquis_communautaire',8,1,'100218.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Acquis_communautaire',8,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Acquis_communautaire',8,1,'1004332.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black; the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Acquis_communautaire',8,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Acquis_communautaire',8,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Acquis_communautaire',8,1,'1004424.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Acquis_communautaire',8,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Acquis_communautaire',8,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Action_(philosophy)',1,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1001102.txt','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages; in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1001166.txt','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1001255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'100278.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or Lingua. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or \"Lingua\". Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Action_theory_(philosophy)',16,1,'1004594.txt','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Activism',2,1,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Activism',2,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Acts_of_Union_1707',1,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Act_of_Congress',6,2,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Act_of_Congress',6,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Act_of_Congress',6,1,'100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Act_of_Congress',6,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Act_of_Congress',6,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Act_of_Congress',6,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Act_of_Parliament',2,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Act_of_Parliament',2,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Acute_stress_reaction',1,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Addiction',2,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Addiction',2,1,'1004408.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Administrative_divisions_of_New_York',1,1,'100431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Adolescence',1,1,'1004156.txt','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Adoption',4,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Adoption',4,1,'1001176.txt','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.'),(11.042921835724492,5.521460917862246,1000,'Adoption',4,2,'1001288.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Adoption',4,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Adriatic_Sea',1,2,'1004498.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, in a few months’ time, hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers will again head for the Adriatic Coast to spend their summer holiday. We know from media reports that bombs and weapons were dumped just off the coast. Are you able to confirm that holidaymakers will be able to swim safely in the Adriatic this summer, and are there any measures in the pipeline for ascertaining what the dangers might be in this respect?','Mr President, Commissioner, in a few months’ time, hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers will again head for the Adriatic Coast to spend their summer holiday. We know from media reports that bombs and weapons were dumped just off the coast. Are you able to confirm that holidaymakers will be able to swim safely in the Adriatic this summer, and are there any measures in the pipeline for ascertaining what the dangers might be in this respect?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Adultery',1,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Adult_education',1,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Adult_stem_cell',1,2,'100123.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Advance_healthcare_directive',1,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Adventitiousness',1,1,'1004149.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Adverse_effect',3,1,'1001149.txt','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Adverse_effect',3,1,'1004394.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you have spoken of the lengthy payment procedures which have an adverse effect on the image of the European Union in the various actions it takes. We are currently in the middle of a conciliation procedure for the late payment directive, in other words, this is not just a problem in external relations it is also a problem within Europe. I think that it would make sense if you as Commissioner supported the view that the late payment directive should also apply to the European institutions, because then payment could be made, if there was a legal basis, within a certain period of time, namely between 21 and 30 days or, we hope, even sooner. The idea is that the late payment directive could also be applied in these areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, you have spoken of the lengthy payment procedures which have an adverse effect on the image of the European Union in the various actions it takes. We are currently in the middle of a conciliation procedure for the late payment directive, in other words, this is not just a problem in external relations; it is also a problem within Europe. I think that it would make sense if you as Commissioner supported the view that the late payment directive should also apply to the European institutions, because then payment could be made, if there was a legal basis, within a certain period of time, namely between 21 and 30 days or, we hope, even sooner. The idea is that the late payment directive could also be applied in these areas.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Adverse_effect',3,1,'1004484.txt','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,2,'1001157.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'1001209.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'100225.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes; the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully; it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'100264.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur; well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again; perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,2,'1004219.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Advertising',12,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Advice_and_consent',1,1,'100168.txt','The position of the non-attached Members on the content of the first two decisions of Parliament regarding the Statute for Members has not changed. In order, however, to put an end to the present inactivity on this issue, we have – against the background of recent negotiations with the Council – agreed to the confirmation of these decisions.','The position of the non-attached Members on the content of the first two decisions of Parliament regarding the Statute for Members has not changed. In order, however, to put an end to the present inactivity on this issue, we have – against the background of recent negotiations with the Council – agreed to the confirmation of these decisions.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Advisory_board',1,1,'10046.txt','Mr President, perhaps something was lost in translation. My question was: are there any plans to use external professional support or recruitment advisors so as to ensure that the best possible staff are recruited?','Mr President, perhaps something was lost in translation. My question was: are there any plans to use external professional support or recruitment advisors so as to ensure that the best possible staff are recruited?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Advocacy',2,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Advocacy',2,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Advocacy_group',3,1,'100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Advocacy_group',3,1,'10022.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Advocacy_group',3,1,'1004588.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Ad_hoc',3,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Ad_hoc',3,1,'100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Ad_hoc',3,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Aerial_tramway',1,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Aesthetics',2,1,'1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Aesthetics',2,1,'1004417.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff; the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Affirmative_action',2,1,'1001113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Affirmative_action',2,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1001123.txt','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea; that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1001243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1004408.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,1,'1004500.txt','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Afghanistan',10,2,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Afghan_refugees',1,1,'1004322.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU-Slovakia Joint Parliamentary Committee recently toured our border with Slovakia. Near Kosicec there is a forty-kilometre long border strip consisting of green fields. We were told that this is very difficult to monitor and that, at present, a very substantial influx of Afghan refugees can be observed there, perhaps not all of whom are entering Europe motivated by peaceful intentions. I would therefore like to ask if it is possible for the Commission to introduce satellite surveillance here, for example, or automated systems, making it possible on the one hand to gather statistical material and, on the other, to pick up more of these refugees and so be better protected in future? What programmes are in fact available to these states?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU-Slovakia Joint Parliamentary Committee recently toured our border with Slovakia. Near Kosicec there is a forty-kilometre long border strip consisting of green fields. We were told that this is very difficult to monitor and that, at present, a very substantial influx of Afghan refugees can be observed there, perhaps not all of whom are entering Europe motivated by peaceful intentions. I would therefore like to ask if it is possible for the Commission to introduce satellite surveillance here, for example, or automated systems, making it possible on the one hand to gather statistical material and, on the other, to pick up more of these refugees and so be better protected in future? What programmes are in fact available to these states?'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Africa',6,1,'1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Africa',6,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Africa',6,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Africa',6,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Africa',6,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Africa',6,1,'1004613.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Afterlife',1,1,'1001184.txt','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Aftermath_(The_Rolling_Stones_album)',1,1,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Ageing',2,1,'1004462.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people. That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the ageing workforce. Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: \"But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people\". That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the \"ageing workforce\". Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years; today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Ageing',2,1,'1004531.txt','Mr President, during the discussions on the Karas Report I reprimanded Mr García-Margallo y Marfil for using the word ‘Vergreisung’ with reference to old people, with its suggestion that they are too old. There seems to have been an error in translation here. Our Spanish colleague used the word ‘Alterung’, which means ‘ageing’, rather than ‘Vergreisung’. Mr President, I regret my inability to speak Spanish.','Mr President, during the discussions on the Karas Report I reprimanded Mr García-Margallo y Marfil for using the word ‘Vergreisung’ with reference to old people, with its suggestion that they are too old. There seems to have been an error in translation here. Our Spanish colleague used the word ‘Alterung’, which means ‘ageing’, rather than ‘Vergreisung’. Mr President, I regret my inability to speak Spanish.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Ageism',3,1,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Ageism',3,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Ageism',3,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Agenda_2000',7,1,'1001130.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Agenda_2000',7,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Agenda_2000',7,1,'100135.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Agenda_2000',7,1,'10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Agenda_2000',7,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Agenda_2000',7,1,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Agenda_2000',7,1,'1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Agenda_21',2,1,'1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Agenda_21',2,1,'100194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Age_of_majority',1,1,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Age_of_Oil',1,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Agitprop',1,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Agnes_Schierhuber',3,1,'100150.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Agnes_Schierhuber',3,1,'1004486.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Agnes_Schierhuber',3,1,'1004547.txt','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Agreement_on_Agriculture',1,1,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Agricultural_economics',1,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Agricultural_policy',6,2,'1001301.txt','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Agricultural_policy',6,1,'1004149.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Agricultural_policy',6,1,'1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Agricultural_policy',6,1,'1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Agricultural_policy',6,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Agricultural_policy',6,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Agricultural_subsidy',1,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'1001111.txt','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1001191.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1001230.txt','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1001253.txt','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1001257.txt','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1001293.txt','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1001301.txt','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'100135.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'100150.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'100411.txt','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004128.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'1004149.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'100417.txt','It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?','It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement; rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?'),(10.872402147686847,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,4,'1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004245.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner you have done an excellent piece of work.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner; you have done an excellent piece of work.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004272.txt','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(10.872402147686847,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,4,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004436.txt','Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?','Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004472.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004478.txt','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004480.txt','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004485.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (8.154301610765135,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,3,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(5.436201073843423,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,2,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004620.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004623.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004628.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.'),(19.026703758451983,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,7,'100463.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production; connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield; moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004630.txt','Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.','Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.'),(2.7181005369217117,2.7181005369217117,1000,'Agriculture',66,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ahmed_Zaki_Yamani',1,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Aid',2,1,'1004366.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Aid',2,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Aiding_and_abetting',1,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Airbus',1,1,'1004536.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.'),(11.042921835724492,5.521460917862246,1000,'Airline',4,2,'1001182.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Airline',4,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Airline',4,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Airline',4,1,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Airport',1,1,'1004197.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines; it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here; I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business; there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Air_conditioning',1,1,'1004378.txt','–  Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause)  As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)','–  Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause)  As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'100196.txt','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,2,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'1004155.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,1,'1004587.txt','Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport. As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?','Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper \"Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport\". As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?'),(13.529580018548302,4.509860006182767,1000,'Air_pollution',11,3,'1004589.txt','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Air_traffic_control',1,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Al-Qaeda',2,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Al-Qaeda',2,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Albania',2,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Albania',2,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Alcohol',2,2,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Alcohol',2,1,'1004219.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Alexander_Radwan',2,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Alexander_Radwan',2,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alexander_the_Great',1,1,'1004621.txt','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alexandre_Lamfalussy',1,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alexandros_Sakellariou',1,1,'1001129.txt','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alfred_North_Whitehead',1,1,'1004540.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Algeria',1,1,'1004243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Allies_of_World_War_II',2,1,'1001204.txt','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Allies_of_World_War_II',2,1,'1004147.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1001106.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1001282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties; not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1001296.txt','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1001298.txt','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another; surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary; avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'10014.txt','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'100231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004155.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004311.txt','Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!','Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency; and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government; and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004361.txt','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004484.txt','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004486.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004589.txt','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004605.txt','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen; we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'All_for_This',25,1,'1004624.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'All_in_the_Same_Boat',2,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'All_in_the_Same_Boat',2,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'All_Systems_Go_(Donna_Summer_album)',1,1,'1004575.txt','Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.','Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'All_the_Amendments',3,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'All_the_Amendments',3,1,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'All_the_Amendments',3,1,'1004450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect; we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'All_the_Reasons_Why',1,1,'1004472.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alms',1,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alpha_and_beta_carbon',1,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Alpine_Convention',5,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Alpine_Convention',5,1,'10021.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Alpine_Convention',5,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Alpine_Convention',5,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Alpine_Convention',5,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alpine_states',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'100180.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'10021.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'100232.txt','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'1004136.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause)  ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause)  ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria; this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains; they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done; only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'1004337.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'100440.txt','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'1004590.txt','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Alps',15,1,'1004615.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I agree with the Commissioner obviously, the routes across the Alps are in competition with one another. But, as we all know, these routes are in a highly sensitive zone. If one motorway company has saved money over a number of years in order to be able to offer a better solution, then my question is, why can we not leave it to the motorway companies to decide if they wish to offer technical alternatives in order to improve traffic across the Alps? I would be interested to know what you think about this and whether we should leave it to the companies involved to decide the technical alternatives.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I agree with the Commissioner; obviously, the routes across the Alps are in competition with one another. But, as we all know, these routes are in a highly sensitive zone. If one motorway company has saved money over a number of years in order to be able to offer a better solution, then my question is, why can we not leave it to the motorway companies to decide if they wish to offer technical alternatives in order to improve traffic across the Alps? I would be interested to know what you think about this and whether we should leave it to the companies involved to decide the technical alternatives.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alsace',1,1,'1004381.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Alternative_energy',2,1,'1001303.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Alternative_energy',2,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alternative_fuel',1,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Alternative_fuel_vehicle',1,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Altiero_Spinelli',1,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ambiguity',1,1,'100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Amélie',1,1,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Americans',3,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Americans',3,1,'1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Americans',3,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'American_Civil_War',1,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'American_School_(economics)',1,1,'1004536.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Americas',1,1,'100181.txt','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Amnesty_law',3,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Amnesty_law',3,1,'1001138.txt','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Amnesty_law',3,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'10010.txt','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice; efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime; and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'1001119.txt','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'1001218.txt','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100143.txt','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three left overs plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three \"left overs\" plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100199.txt','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100266.txt','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100277.txt','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy; even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms; having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried; the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Amsterdam',17,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1001139.txt','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1004270.txt','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1004458.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Amsterdam_Treaty',9,1,'1004462.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people. That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the ageing workforce. Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: \"But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people\". That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the \"ageing workforce\". Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years; today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anaerobic_digestion',1,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Analysis',2,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Analysis',2,1,'1004271.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Analytic–synthetic_distinction',1,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ana_de_Palacio_y_del_Valle-Lersundi',1,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'1001301.txt','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'100152.txt','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'100175.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'1004258.txt','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,2,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Ancient_Greece',12,1,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Ancient_Rome',2,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Ancient_Rome',2,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Andean_Community',1,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Andean_states',1,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Andrei_Sakharov',1,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Andrew_Duff',1,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Andrew_Young_School_of_Policy_Studies',1,1,'1001109.txt','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless unsatisfactory from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless \"unsatisfactory\" from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause; it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'And_I_Thank_You',1,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'And_That_Reminds_Me',1,1,'1004462.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people. That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the ageing workforce. Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: \"But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people\". That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the \"ageing workforce\". Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years; today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Angela_Merkel',1,1,'1004450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect; we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anglo-Irish_Treaty_Dáil_vote',1,1,'100260.txt','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anglosphere',1,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Angola',2,1,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Angola',2,1,'100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Animal_feed',4,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Animal_feed',4,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Animal_feed',4,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Animal_feed',4,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Animal_nutrition',1,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Animal_product',1,1,'1001225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Animal_rights',2,2,'1004457.txt','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up; they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more; instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Animal_rights',2,1,'1004613.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Animal_testing',2,2,'100434.txt','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Animal_testing',2,1,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Animal_welfare',5,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Animal_welfare',5,1,'100434.txt','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Animal_welfare',5,1,'1004447.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Animal_welfare',5,1,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Animal_welfare',5,1,'1004613.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ankara',1,1,'1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anna_Diamantopoulou',1,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anneli_Hulthén',1,1,'1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Antarctic',1,1,'100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anti-aging_cream',1,1,'1004215.txt','Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner\'s heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)','Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner\'s heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anti-Fascist_Council_for_the_National_Liberation_of_Yugoslavia',1,1,'1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anti-partisan_operations_in_World_War_II',1,1,'100462.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anti-racism',1,1,'100414.txt','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss; it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anti-social_behaviour',1,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Antisemitism',1,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Antisemitism_in_Europe',1,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Antithesis',1,1,'1004190.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Antonios_Trakatellis',1,1,'1004361.txt','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'António_Castanheira_Neves',1,1,'10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'António_Vitorino',6,1,'100239.txt','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'António_Vitorino',6,1,'1004160.txt','Mr President, I have two questions. The first is about securing our external borders. I very much welcome the programme and proposals with regard to enlargement, and particularly the fact that you want to have uniform responsibilities. The question is this: when do you think the new Schengen manual will be available? We will have common training programmes. When do you think this common training system will be operational? What I would also like to request is that we should consider the compatibility of the technology being used and that we should also get Europol to carry out the proposed risk assessment as soon as possible. When do you think the system will be operating? My second question is about migration. Our objective – and on this we agree – must be to create viable legal immigration mechanisms and prevent illegal immigration. However, the problem that arises here relates in particular to the area of asylum, where, although the Commission has made proposals, final decisions remain to be made in all areas. But we need decisions to be made quickly so that genuine refugees – who make up about 10% of applicants – can be helped swiftly and so that repatriation can be arranged for the remaining 90% that have to be rejected. Commissioner Vitorino, how do you intend to ensure that a system of this kind can finally be made operational and that we can secure Council approval?','Mr President, I have two questions. The first is about securing our external borders. I very much welcome the programme and proposals with regard to enlargement, and particularly the fact that you want to have uniform responsibilities. The question is this: when do you think the new Schengen manual will be available? We will have common training programmes. When do you think this common training system will be operational? What I would also like to request is that we should consider the compatibility of the technology being used and that we should also get Europol to carry out the proposed risk assessment as soon as possible. When do you think the system will be operating? My second question is about migration. Our objective – and on this we agree – must be to create viable legal immigration mechanisms and prevent illegal immigration. However, the problem that arises here relates in particular to the area of asylum, where, although the Commission has made proposals, final decisions remain to be made in all areas. But we need decisions to be made quickly so that genuine refugees – who make up about 10% of applicants – can be helped swiftly and so that repatriation can be arranged for the remaining 90% that have to be rejected. Commissioner Vitorino, how do you intend to ensure that a system of this kind can finally be made operational and that we can secure Council approval?'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'António_Vitorino',6,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'António_Vitorino',6,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'António_Vitorino',6,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'António_Vitorino',6,1,'1004586.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it; we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anxiety',1,1,'1004544.txt','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Anything_for_You_(Gloria_Estefan_and_Miami_Sound_Machine_song)',1,1,'1004342.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change; it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Apathy',1,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Appeal',7,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Appeal',7,1,'1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Appeal',7,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Appeal',7,1,'100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Appeal',7,1,'1004170.txt','Mr President, I would like it noted as a matter of urgency that the case of Dr. Ganzert, an attorney from Wels, has been dismissed. He is at present being held without good cause by the authorities in Nicaragua and has for three weeks been endeavouring to get permission to leave the country. I wish, though, to thank you, Madam President, for writing to the authorities in Nicaragua and asking for him to be given an exit visa.','Mr President, I would like it noted as a matter of urgency that the case of Dr. Ganzert, an attorney from Wels, has been dismissed. He is at present being held without good cause by the authorities in Nicaragua and has for three weeks been endeavouring to get permission to leave the country. I wish, though, to thank you, Madam President, for writing to the authorities in Nicaragua and asking for him to be given an exit visa.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Appeal',7,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Appeal',7,1,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Apple_Inc.',1,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Applied_science',6,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Applied_science',6,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Applied_science',6,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Applied_science',6,1,'1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Applied_science',6,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Applied_science',6,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Apprenticeship',1,1,'1001125.txt','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Arable_land',1,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Arabs',1,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arab_League',2,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arab_League',2,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Arab_world',1,1,'100181.txt','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Area_of_freedom,_security_and_justice',7,1,'10010.txt','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice; efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime; and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Area_of_freedom,_security_and_justice',7,1,'10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Area_of_freedom,_security_and_justice',7,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Area_of_freedom,_security_and_justice',7,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Area_of_freedom,_security_and_justice',7,1,'1004367.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Area_of_freedom,_security_and_justice',7,1,'1004439.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control; I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Area_of_freedom,_security_and_justice',7,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Argentina',3,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Argentina',3,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Argentina',3,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Argon',1,1,'1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1001261.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet; this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1001299.txt','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Argument',11,1,'1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ariel_Sharon',1,1,'10045.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away; the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Aristides_Baltas',1,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Aristotelis_Korakas',1,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arithmetic',2,1,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arithmetic',2,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arja_Salafranca',2,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arja_Salafranca',2,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Arkadiusz_Gołaś',1,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Armenia',5,1,'1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Armenia',5,1,'1001203.txt','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Armenia',5,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Armenia',5,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Armenia',5,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Armenians',1,2,'1001161.txt','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Armenian_Genocide_recognition',1,1,'1001161.txt','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Árpád_Pusztai',1,1,'1001149.txt','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arrest_warrant',2,1,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arrest_warrant',2,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Arsenal_F.C.',1,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Arsenic',1,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Art',8,1,'100118.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.'),(9.656627474604603,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Art',8,2,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(9.656627474604603,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Art',8,2,'1001214.txt','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences; the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Art',8,1,'1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Art',8,1,'1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Art',8,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Art',8,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Art',8,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Artemis_(satellite)',1,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Article_99',1,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution',1,1,'1004374.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping; politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point; it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Artificial_intelligence',2,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Artificial_intelligence',2,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arto_Paasilinna',2,1,'100242.txt','Mr President, I am very grateful to Mr Paasilinna, the rapporteur, for addressing his question to the Commission and thereby making a number of things slightly clearer. I also wish to thank Commissioner Liikanen for the position he has publicly taken, but I would like to add that these reports – of which there are several, the whole package in the last couple of weeks – have put us under enormous pressure and that there have been a lot of misunderstandings because we have not always been able to inform each other of amendments that have been made. I would like to point out that these misunderstandings have led to my name being used by the Greens to support the content of the compromise motions, although I had signed nothing for them. Now I find myself back here again. Pressure of time means, however, that I now agree to them and will not withdraw anything. I only actually signed two amendments, not the others. That I had signed the others had evidently been taken as read because of the way I had expressed myself. This is not an accusation levelled at any individuals, but simply further evidence I wish to adduce to demonstrate what happens when we are under pressure of this sort through wanting to go public with this document towards the end of the year. I do not want to have to work in this way again on such a thorny problem in the future. It really is not on!','Mr President, I am very grateful to Mr Paasilinna, the rapporteur, for addressing his question to the Commission and thereby making a number of things slightly clearer. I also wish to thank Commissioner Liikanen for the position he has publicly taken, but I would like to add that these reports – of which there are several, the whole package in the last couple of weeks – have put us under enormous pressure and that there have been a lot of misunderstandings because we have not always been able to inform each other of amendments that have been made. I would like to point out that these misunderstandings have led to my name being used by the Greens to support the content of the compromise motions, although I had signed nothing for them. Now I find myself back here again. Pressure of time means, however, that I now agree to them and will not withdraw anything. I only actually signed two amendments, not the others. That I had signed the others had evidently been taken as read because of the way I had expressed myself. This is not an accusation levelled at any individuals, but simply further evidence I wish to adduce to demonstrate what happens when we are under pressure of this sort through wanting to go public with this document towards the end of the year. I do not want to have to work in this way again on such a thorny problem in the future. It really is not on!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Arto_Paasilinna',2,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ascending_chain_condition',1,1,'1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Asia',2,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Asia',2,1,'1004536.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Asian_Americans',2,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Asian_Americans',2,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Asian_people',2,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Asian_people',2,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Asia–Europe_Meeting_(ASEM)',1,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Aspirin',2,1,'100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Aspirin',2,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Assault',1,1,'1004204.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to tell you that a lady who works with me has been attacked and beaten up at the railway station, and that the security situation has not improved.','Mr President, I just wanted to tell you that a lady who works with me has been attacked and beaten up at the railway station, and that the security situation has not improved.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Association_of_Southeast_Asian_Nations',1,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Astrid_Lulling',2,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Astrid_Lulling',2,1,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'As_It_Is_(band)',1,1,'1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'As_the_Days_Go_By',1,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'As_Time_Goes_By_(song)',1,1,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Athens',3,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Athens',3,1,'1004258.txt','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Athens',3,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Attention',3,2,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Attention',3,1,'100278.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or Lingua. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or \"Lingua\". Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Attention',3,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Attitude_(psychology)',4,1,'1001122.txt','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies; but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Attitude_(psychology)',4,1,'1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Attitude_(psychology)',4,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Attitude_(psychology)',4,1,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Auction',3,1,'100412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Auction',3,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Auction',3,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Audit',1,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Auditors_report',1,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'1001119.txt','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'100421.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'1004304.txt','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Aurangabad,_Maharashtra',9,1,'1004600.txt','Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission\'s document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.','Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission\'s document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Austerity',3,1,'1001121.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Austerity',3,1,'100161.txt','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Austerity',3,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001104.txt','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001108.txt','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001124.txt','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001171.txt','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001173.txt','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001176.txt','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001177.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100119.txt','Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which really addresses the problem, and to thank him for it. Austria has always played an important part when it comes to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and has also contributed more than its fair share to solving the resultant problems. I would particularly like to thank Mr Nassauer for adding to what the rapporteur has said in this respect. However, it is high time a satisfactory pan-European solution was found to this problem. It is not enough just to call for solidarity between all the Member States. As regards reception of persons by the Member States, the Commission proposal only talks about Community solidarity, but this concept needs to be firmed up in the spirit of Article 63(2)(b) of the Treaty. The purpose of the directive as described in Article 1 should also include the idea that displaced persons should be allocated to the Member States with due regard for their absorptive capacity. However, the solidarity mechanism operating between the Member States should also cover both aspects, that is to say both the financial and personal aspects of solidarity.','Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which really addresses the problem, and to thank him for it. Austria has always played an important part when it comes to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and has also contributed more than its fair share to solving the resultant problems. I would particularly like to thank Mr Nassauer for adding to what the rapporteur has said in this respect. However, it is high time a satisfactory pan-European solution was found to this problem. It is not enough just to call for solidarity between all the Member States. As regards reception of persons by the Member States, the Commission proposal only talks about Community solidarity, but this concept needs to be firmed up in the spirit of Article 63(2)(b) of the Treaty. The purpose of the directive as described in Article 1 should also include the idea that displaced persons should be allocated to the Member States with due regard for their absorptive capacity. However, the solidarity mechanism operating between the Member States should also cover both aspects, that is to say both the financial and personal aspects of solidarity.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found; the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs; European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy; Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001216.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001218.txt','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001249.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001260.txt','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001264.txt','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001269.txt','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim less is more. Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim \"less is more\". Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens; the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001271.txt','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001281.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001288.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100155.txt','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100160.txt','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100162.txt','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100180.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100196.txt','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100197.txt','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100198.txt','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report; firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators; secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level; and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100218.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004114.txt','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004127.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and the entire committee for their work. The harmonisation and liberalisation of rail transport in the EU is an important step towards the aims of transferring more transport from road to rail and creating an integrated intermodal transport system. In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, it is essential that the trans-European network projects affecting the eastern part of Austria should actually be implemented on schedule. This infrastructure is needed to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the population of those areas and to ensure that they remain favourably disposed to enlargement. These are normal projects, relating to the rail and road networks and the Danube improvement scheme. One word on a topical issue: we all know that every Member State has its own particular set of circumstances and its own problems. May I therefore appeal again today to all those involved in the ecopoints negotiations to work out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and the entire committee for their work. The harmonisation and liberalisation of rail transport in the EU is an important step towards the aims of transferring more transport from road to rail and creating an integrated intermodal transport system. In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, it is essential that the trans-European network projects affecting the eastern part of Austria should actually be implemented on schedule. This infrastructure is needed to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the population of those areas and to ensure that they remain favourably disposed to enlargement. These are normal projects, relating to the rail and road networks and the Danube improvement scheme. One word on a topical issue: we all know that every Member State has its own particular set of circumstances and its own problems. May I therefore appeal again today to all those involved in the ecopoints negotiations to work out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004136.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause)  ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause)  ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria; this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains; they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done; only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100417.txt','It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?','It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement; rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004201.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5% in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5%; in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,2,'1004217.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I want to firmly reject Mr Sylla’s comment that we have a politically-led judiciary in our country, in the Republic of Austria. (Applause)  Secondly I want to note that there are many urgent resolutions that deserve to be discussed in this House. The urgency on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna, tabled by Dr Swoboda, does not deserve any urgent discussion. It was prompted by a purely personal matter concerning Professor Pelinka. He resigned from the Centre’s Management Board voluntarily. The real reason was that he refused to do something which is a matter of course, which is the duty of every Austrian citizen, namely to render account of his activity if he is being paid for it by the Austrian Government. Let someone tell me what that has to do with the European Parliament. So it is easy to understand why we will not endorse recital A of this motion for a resolution and cannot share the concern about this matter. It should also be noted that the Monitoring Centre on racism is based in Vienna, not least thanks to the commitment of the present Chancellor and then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel, and that we are proud to give a home in Vienna to this kind of institution that keeps a watchful eye on xenophobia and racism in all the European countries. For the Centre’s report indicates that no one country is immune from such tendencies. For the rest, Austria has very strict regulations against neo-Nazism and its reactivation. Perhaps it needs pointing out that one sad case, the Omufuma case, was a case that a Socialist minister of the interior had to answer for. Clearly Dr Swoboda was also aware of the embarrassing nature of his first motion, otherwise the basically reasonable and considerably weaker motion for a resolution we can all support would not have come into being. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I want to firmly reject Mr Sylla’s comment that we have a politically-led judiciary in our country, in the Republic of Austria. (Applause)  Secondly I want to note that there are many urgent resolutions that deserve to be discussed in this House. The urgency on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna, tabled by Dr Swoboda, does not deserve any urgent discussion. It was prompted by a purely personal matter concerning Professor Pelinka. He resigned from the Centre’s Management Board voluntarily. The real reason was that he refused to do something which is a matter of course, which is the duty of every Austrian citizen, namely to render account of his activity if he is being paid for it by the Austrian Government. Let someone tell me what that has to do with the European Parliament. So it is easy to understand why we will not endorse recital A of this motion for a resolution and cannot share the concern about this matter. It should also be noted that the Monitoring Centre on racism is based in Vienna, not least thanks to the commitment of the present Chancellor and then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel, and that we are proud to give a home in Vienna to this kind of institution that keeps a watchful eye on xenophobia and racism in all the European countries. For the Centre’s report indicates that no one country is immune from such tendencies. For the rest, Austria has very strict regulations against neo-Nazism and its reactivation. Perhaps it needs pointing out that one sad case, the Omufuma case, was a case that a Socialist minister of the interior had to answer for. Clearly Dr Swoboda was also aware of the embarrassing nature of his first motion, otherwise the basically reasonable and considerably weaker motion for a resolution we can all support would not have come into being. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004275.txt','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,2,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004289.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004304.txt','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004311.txt','Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!','Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency; and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government; and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004337.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004356.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg; instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004361.txt','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004373.txt','Mr President, I would like to make a correction to my statement on the EC/Switzerland agreement, because since 1 May this year, Mr Jörg Haider has been neither a member of the government nor the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party. As such, the grounds for the sanctions imposed by the 14+1 on one Member State should be rescinded immediately.','Mr President, I would like to make a correction to my statement on the EC/Switzerland agreement, because since 1 May this year, Mr Jörg Haider has been neither a member of the government nor the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party. As such, the grounds for the sanctions imposed by the 14+1 on one Member State should be rescinded immediately.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004374.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping; politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point; it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004383.txt','Madam President, allow me briefly to correct what the President-in-Office of the Council said. Two heads of government, Mr President-in-Office, have already been reprimanded by their parliaments for the steps which they initiated against Austria. You therefore had no right to speak on behalf of their countries on the contrary, you obviously spoke as the head of a socialist party. At most, Mr President-in-Office, you can therefore only speak of twelve countries.','Madam President, allow me briefly to correct what the President-in-Office of the Council said. Two heads of government, Mr President-in-Office, have already been reprimanded by their parliaments for the steps which they initiated against Austria. You therefore had no right to speak on behalf of their countries; on the contrary, you obviously spoke as the head of a socialist party. At most, Mr President-in-Office, you can therefore only speak of twelve countries.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004392.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100440.txt','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004432.txt','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended; to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous; it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes; we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need; they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004435.txt','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004438.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, it is clear from your reply that you personally are holding the Council to ransom. It is also clear that your personal prejudices, which bear no relation to the situation in Austria and contradict the experts\' report, also have a great deal of influence on your function as President-in-Office, as can be seen from your itinerary in preparation for the French President\'s and the President-in-Office\'s tour des capitales . My question, therefore, is when do you intend to start performing all your duties in a way which reflects the spirit of Robert Schuman, the content of the experts\' report and the situation in Austria, and leaving your personal prejudices to one side? (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, it is clear from your reply that you personally are holding the Council to ransom. It is also clear that your personal prejudices, which bear no relation to the situation in Austria and contradict the experts\' report, also have a great deal of influence on your function as President-in-Office, as can be seen from your itinerary in preparation for the French President\'s and the President-in-Office\'s tour des capitales . My question, therefore, is when do you intend to start performing all your duties in a way which reflects the spirit of Robert Schuman, the content of the experts\' report and the situation in Austria, and leaving your personal prejudices to one side? (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004444.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004447.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect; we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004470.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004472.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004485.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004511.txt','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004529.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004572.txt','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term; support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways; such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004596.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004613.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Austria',140,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Austria-Hungary',2,1,'1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Austria-Hungary',2,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,1,'1001117.txt','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,1,'1001124.txt','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,1,'1001186.txt','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,1,'1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,1,'1001194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found; the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs; European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy; Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,1,'100180.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,1,'100191.txt','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays; increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.'),(9.421061403289835,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,2,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Austrians',9,1,'100440.txt','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Austrian_Armed_Forces',1,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1001214.txt','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences; the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1001263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'100232.txt','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'100411.txt','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004469.txt','Madam President, in order to remove all doubt I would now like to make a clarification. On Sunday, 14 January Austria had its first suspected case of BSE. Allow me to inform the House that the institute in Tübingen informed us yesterday that the results were negative. I hope the same will apply to all future suspected cases in Austria. (Applause)','Madam President, in order to remove all doubt I would now like to make a clarification. On Sunday, 14 January Austria had its first suspected case of BSE. Allow me to inform the House that the institute in Tübingen informed us yesterday that the results were negative. I hope the same will apply to all future suspected cases in Austria. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004530.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged that railway companies are now competing with the cheap tickets offered by the airlines. How do you intend to proceed with regard to the state aid that is currently being paid to the railways? Will restrictions on the options apply here as well? In Austria, for example, 7% of the budget is spent on the railways. That amounts to around EUR 500 per citizen in subsidies to the railways, which are now competing directly with the privately-owned low-cost airlines. This means that there is unfair competition between the cheap tickets offered by the airlines and those offered by the railways. I would be very pleased if you took similar action against the railways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged that railway companies are now competing with the cheap tickets offered by the airlines. How do you intend to proceed with regard to the state aid that is currently being paid to the railways? Will restrictions on the options apply here as well? In Austria, for example, 7% of the budget is spent on the railways. That amounts to around EUR 500 per citizen in subsidies to the railways, which are now competing directly with the privately-owned low-cost airlines. This means that there is unfair competition between the cheap tickets offered by the airlines and those offered by the railways. I would be very pleased if you took similar action against the railways.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004562.txt','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Austrian_Empire',18,1,'1004590.txt','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Austrian_Institute_of_Economic_Research',1,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Austrian_National_Library',1,1,'1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Austrian_Parliament',2,1,'1001255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Austrian_Parliament',2,1,'1004158.txt','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,2,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,2,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,1,'1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,1,'1004414.txt','On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market.','On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,1,'1004544.txt','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,1,'1004621.txt','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Austrian_Peoples_Party',10,2,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Austrian_schilling',1,1,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004297.txt','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'100436.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15 we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15; we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004374.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping; politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point; it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(3.6888794541139363,3.6888794541139363,1000,'Austrian_School',25,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Austria_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest',2,1,'1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Austria_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest',2,1,'100183.txt','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Authoritarianism',1,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1001244.txt','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'100130.txt','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'100152.txt','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'100161.txt','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'100186.txt','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'10023.txt','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty. Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty\". Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,2,'1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004170.txt','Mr President, I would like it noted as a matter of urgency that the case of Dr. Ganzert, an attorney from Wels, has been dismissed. He is at present being held without good cause by the authorities in Nicaragua and has for three weeks been endeavouring to get permission to leave the country. I wish, though, to thank you, Madam President, for writing to the authorities in Nicaragua and asking for him to be given an exit visa.','Mr President, I would like it noted as a matter of urgency that the case of Dr. Ganzert, an attorney from Wels, has been dismissed. He is at present being held without good cause by the authorities in Nicaragua and has for three weeks been endeavouring to get permission to leave the country. I wish, though, to thank you, Madam President, for writing to the authorities in Nicaragua and asking for him to be given an exit visa.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004223.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations; the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004366.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,2,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Authority',34,1,'1004609.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this issue does not just concern Spain. For instance, yesterday I got a call from a road haulier from the top of whose lorry immigrants had cut a way in through the cover during the crossing. The British border authorities then arrested these immigrants and the haulier had to pay a fine, although he was unaware immigrants were on board. I therefore put the following supplementary question: what is the Council Presidency thinking of doing to get to grips with this type of activity?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this issue does not just concern Spain. For instance, yesterday I got a call from a road haulier from the top of whose lorry immigrants had cut a way in through the cover during the crossing. The British border authorities then arrested these immigrants and the haulier had to pay a fine, although he was unaware immigrants were on board. I therefore put the following supplementary question: what is the Council Presidency thinking of doing to get to grips with this type of activity?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Autonomous_car',2,1,'1004333.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Autonomous_car',2,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Autonomy',8,1,'1001160.txt','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Autonomy',8,1,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Autonomy',8,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Autonomy',8,1,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Autonomy',8,1,'1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Autonomy',8,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Autonomy',8,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Autonomy',8,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Auto_racing',1,1,'1004219.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Avalanche',3,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Avalanche',3,1,'1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Avalanche',3,1,'1004381.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Avant-garde',1,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Aviation',3,1,'1004197.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines; it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here; I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business; there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Aviation',3,1,'1004429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Aviation',3,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Axiom',1,1,'100197.txt','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Azerbaijan',1,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_Closed_Book_(film)',1,1,'100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_Double_Dose',1,1,'100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_for_Anything',1,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_House_to_Let',1,1,'1004152.txt','Mr President, the only thing I wanted to say in response to that is that the Conference of Presidents, which met this morning, is already discussing this topic and that there is to be an official statement by Parliament. We have to put a stop to the way in which rumours are constantly undermining the hard work done in this House. Let us have the names out in the open. If we have the names, we must also take action against the persons concerned. (Applause)','Mr President, the only thing I wanted to say in response to that is that the Conference of Presidents, which met this morning, is already discussing this topic and that there is to be an official statement by Parliament. We have to put a stop to the way in which rumours are constantly undermining the hard work done in this House. Let us have the names out in the open. If we have the names, we must also take action against the persons concerned. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_La_Ronde',1,1,'1004396.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_Little_Respect',1,1,'1004310.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_Matter_of_Life_and_Death_(film)',1,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'A_Must_to_Avoid',3,1,'1001203.txt','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'A_Must_to_Avoid',3,1,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'A_Must_to_Avoid',3,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'A_New_Beginning',2,1,'1001106.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'A_New_Beginning',2,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_New_World_(Angel)',1,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_Place_in_the_World_(album)',1,1,'100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_priori_and_a_posteriori',1,1,'1004584.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area; we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_Question_of_Time',1,1,'1001127.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade; in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'A_Rock_and_Roll_Alternative',2,1,'1004439.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control; I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'A_Rock_and_Roll_Alternative',2,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_Rush_of_Blood_to_the_Head',1,1,'1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'A_Single_Sky',1,1,'1004543.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'B._F._Skinner',2,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'B._F._Skinner',2,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Baby_transport',1,1,'1001247.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word it should be implemented. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word; it should be implemented. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bachelors_degree',3,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bachelors_degree',3,1,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bachelors_degree',3,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bachelor_of_Science',2,1,'1004469.txt','Madam President, in order to remove all doubt I would now like to make a clarification. On Sunday, 14 January Austria had its first suspected case of BSE. Allow me to inform the House that the institute in Tübingen informed us yesterday that the results were negative. I hope the same will apply to all future suspected cases in Austria. (Applause)','Madam President, in order to remove all doubt I would now like to make a clarification. On Sunday, 14 January Austria had its first suspected case of BSE. Allow me to inform the House that the institute in Tübingen informed us yesterday that the results were negative. I hope the same will apply to all future suspected cases in Austria. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bachelor_of_Science',2,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Background_independence',1,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Back_to_the_Wall_(song)',1,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Baghdad',2,1,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Baghdad',2,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Balanced_budget',3,1,'1001281.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Balanced_budget',3,2,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Balanced_budget',3,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Balance_of_nature',1,1,'100420.txt','Mr President, we are always so surprised when the balance of nature is upset. What I should like to ask is whether we could investigate why the balance has been upset under European research programmes?','Mr President, we are always so surprised when the balance of nature is upset. What I should like to ask is whether we could investigate why the balance has been upset under European research programmes?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Balance_of_payments',2,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Balance_of_payments',2,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Balance_of_trade',1,1,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Balance_sheet',5,1,'10010.txt','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice; efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime; and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Balance_sheet',5,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Balance_sheet',5,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Balance_sheet',5,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Balance_sheet',5,1,'1004476.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Balkanization',1,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,2,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,2,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,2,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,1,'1004366.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,2,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(13.529580018548302,4.509860006182767,1000,'Balkans',11,3,'1004634.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Baltic_states',1,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Banana',1,2,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Bank',12,2,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Banknote',2,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Banknote',2,1,'1004131.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker; it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Bankruptcy',8,1,'100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Bankruptcy',8,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Bankruptcy',8,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Bankruptcy',8,1,'1004221.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Bankruptcy',8,1,'1004263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Bankruptcy',8,1,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Bankruptcy',8,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Bankruptcy',8,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bank_charge',1,1,'1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bank_of_Greece',1,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bank_regulation',3,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bank_regulation',3,2,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bank_regulation',3,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bank_reserves',2,1,'100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bank_reserves',2,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ban_(law)',1,2,'1004382.txt','Madam Commissioner, do you know whether any Member States are already giving serious consideration to the possibility of banning these brominated flame retardants at present, or, indeed, have already introduced such a ban?','Madam Commissioner, do you know whether any Member States are already giving serious consideration to the possibility of banning these brominated flame retardants at present, or, indeed, have already introduced such a ban?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Barbara_Prammer',1,1,'100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Barcelona',6,1,'1001170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Barcelona',6,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Barcelona',6,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Barcelona',6,1,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Barcelona',6,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Barcelona',6,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bark_(sound)',2,1,'1004205.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bark_(sound)',2,1,'1004258.txt','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bark_beetle',1,1,'1004381.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Barrel_(unit)',1,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1001191.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004221.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004300.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004476.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Basel',17,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Basel_Committee_on_Banking_Supervision',1,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Basel_II',7,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Basel_II',7,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Basel_II',7,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Basel_II',7,1,'1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Basel_II',7,1,'1004448.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Basel_II',7,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Basel_II',7,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Basel_problem',3,1,'1004335.txt','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Basel_problem',3,1,'1004540.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Basel_problem',3,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Base_and_superstructure',2,1,'1001256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Base_and_superstructure',2,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Base_level',2,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Base_level',2,1,'1004337.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bashar_al-Assad',1,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bashir_Khanbhai',1,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Basic_research',1,1,'1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Basic_Treaty,_1972',1,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Battery_cage',1,1,'1004540.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bavaria',1,1,'1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1001181.txt','Madam President, I must take this opportunity to inform you that a party of schoolchildren invited by me for this week – tomorrow to be precise – has cancelled the visit. I also heard, however, that mine was not the only group affected, but that around half the invited groups had cancelled their visits this week. The children in question, or their parents, fear that security measures in this House are inadequate and that the children would be in danger if they visited Parliament. Let me request you, then, to supply the public with extensive information about the adequacy of the security arrangements. Should this not be possible, consideration should be given to a general suspension of visits. I myself have also another concern: I would welcome it if those visitors\' quotas that cannot be made use of because visits have been cancelled, could be set aside for future dates rather than be lost, so that these groups that, for understandable reasons, are not visiting Parliament now, may make up for it at a later date.','Madam President, I must take this opportunity to inform you that a party of schoolchildren invited by me for this week – tomorrow to be precise – has cancelled the visit. I also heard, however, that mine was not the only group affected, but that around half the invited groups had cancelled their visits this week. The children in question, or their parents, fear that security measures in this House are inadequate and that the children would be in danger if they visited Parliament. Let me request you, then, to supply the public with extensive information about the adequacy of the security arrangements. Should this not be possible, consideration should be given to a general suspension of visits. I myself have also another concern: I would welcome it if those visitors\' quotas that cannot be made use of because visits have been cancelled, could be set aside for future dates rather than be lost, so that these groups that, for understandable reasons, are not visiting Parliament now, may make up for it at a later date.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1001204.txt','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'100133.txt','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'10019.txt','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1004208.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to draw attention to the huge pile of documents we needed for voting this week. I would like to congratulate the honourable Members. We have all been very industrious. (Laughter, applause)','Mr President, I just wanted to draw attention to the huge pile of documents we needed for voting this week. I would like to congratulate the honourable Members. We have all been very industrious. (Laughter, applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1004252.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to observe that the ventilation of this House – by which I mean the whole building – was extreme this week and a very large number of Members have gone down with colds. I would ask you to have the building\'s ventilation system checked. (Applause)','Mr President, I just wanted to observe that the ventilation of this House – by which I mean the whole building – was extreme this week and a very large number of Members have gone down with colds. I would ask you to have the building\'s ventilation system checked. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1004301.txt','Madam President, I saw a few boats landing at Parliament this week and notified the security service. Not only were there language difficulties the telephone line was so poor that it was almost impossible to communicate. I would be most obliged if the number on which the security service can be reached could also be clearly displayed in the House, so that if anyone wants to report an incident, they can do so quickly and efficiently.','Madam President, I saw a few boats landing at Parliament this week and notified the security service. Not only were there language difficulties; the telephone line was so poor that it was almost impossible to communicate. I would be most obliged if the number on which the security service can be reached could also be clearly displayed in the House, so that if anyone wants to report an incident, they can do so quickly and efficiently.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1004306.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1004454.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'BBC_News',11,1,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Beautiful_as_You',1,1,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Beauty',1,1,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Beauty_pageant',1,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Because_the_Internet',1,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Because_We_Want_To',6,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Because_We_Want_To',6,1,'1004190.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Because_We_Want_To',6,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Because_We_Want_To',6,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Because_We_Want_To',6,1,'1004437.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing; on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another; it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer; our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Because_We_Want_To',6,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bedrock',1,1,'1004213.txt','Commissioner, I would like to ask a question on the economic situation. In Slovakia, the package of economy measures has entailed some problems and privations for the population. It is therefore important to stabilise the economic situation. We know in Europe small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the economy. What do you intend to do to expedite economic stability here and especially to establish contact between neighbouring States, located in direct proximity to the European Union? What programmes are envisaged here to get privatisation on the right road too? You know, there were considerable problems with the Meciar Government when privatisation went ahead. I believe that there is a great need for economic rehabilitation, and I believe it is extremely important for Slovakia. I would like to thank you expressly for the fact that you are going to propose that the appropriate negotiations begin in Helsinki. I believe this is a very important contribution that Europe can make.','Commissioner, I would like to ask a question on the economic situation. In Slovakia, the package of economy measures has entailed some problems and privations for the population. It is therefore important to stabilise the economic situation. We know in Europe small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the economy. What do you intend to do to expedite economic stability here and especially to establish contact between neighbouring States, located in direct proximity to the European Union? What programmes are envisaged here to get privatisation on the right road too? You know, there were considerable problems with the Meciar Government when privatisation went ahead. I believe that there is a great need for economic rehabilitation, and I believe it is extremely important for Slovakia. I would like to thank you expressly for the fact that you are going to propose that the appropriate negotiations begin in Helsinki. I believe this is a very important contribution that Europe can make.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Beef',4,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Beef',4,1,'10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Beef',4,1,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Beef',4,1,'1004472.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Beer',1,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Begging_the_question',3,1,'1001187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Begging_the_question',3,1,'1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Begging_the_question',3,1,'1004458.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Begin_Again_(film)',1,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Behavior',3,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Behavior',3,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Behavior',3,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Belarus',3,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Belarus',3,1,'100145.txt','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Belarus',3,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1001186.txt','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1004267.txt','Mr President, I wish, on the record, to thank France and Belgium for the guard on the buildings having now been markedly stepped up.','Mr President, I wish, on the record, to thank France and Belgium for the guard on the buildings having now been markedly stepped up.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1004450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect; we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1004459.txt','Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.','Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(8.6856118430392,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,2,'1004520.txt','Madam President, last week, the MEP Karla Peijs was attacked in Brussels. I would urge you to approach the Belgian Government again and to see to it that security levels are stepped up in Brussels. (Applause)','Madam President, last week, the MEP Karla Peijs was attacked in Brussels. I would urge you to approach the Belgian Government again and to see to it that security levels are stepped up in Brussels. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Belgium',13,1,'1004624.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100112.txt','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001123.txt','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea; that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001130.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001174.txt','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001177.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001185.txt','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100134.txt','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100152.txt','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100155.txt','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100161.txt','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004293.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004304.txt','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'100434.txt','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004361.txt','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004605.txt','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen; we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Belief',49,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004126.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004251.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004285.txt','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004320.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, it would interest me to know, whether you would deem it useful to comb systematically through all the items in the EU budget in order to establish which of them are conducive to sustainable development? Could we use a best-practice method to identify the budget lines with which we actually do anything substantive to promote sustainable development? Perhaps we could also carry out a benchmarking exercise so that the development of the individual budget lines could be observed. Do you believe that the best-practice method could optimise our performance?','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, it would interest me to know, whether you would deem it useful to comb systematically through all the items in the EU budget in order to establish which of them are conducive to sustainable development? Could we use a best-practice method to identify the budget lines with which we actually do anything substantive to promote sustainable development? Perhaps we could also carry out a benchmarking exercise so that the development of the individual budget lines could be observed. Do you believe that the best-practice method could optimise our performance?'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004444.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004568.txt','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Benchmarking',14,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1001117.txt','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1001138.txt','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'100144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1004114.txt','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Beneš_decrees',12,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Benzene',1,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Benzo(a)pyrene',1,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Beqaa_Valley',1,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Berlin',7,1,'1001253.txt','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Berlin',7,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Berlin',7,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Berlin',7,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Berlin',7,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Berlin',7,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Berlin',7,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Berlin_Blockade',1,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bernd_Posselt',1,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Berne_Convention',1,1,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bernhard_Friedmann',1,1,'100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bernhard_Rapkay',1,1,'100415.txt','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes; they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Bertel_Haarder',5,1,'1001173.txt','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Bertel_Haarder',5,1,'10040.txt','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Bertel_Haarder',5,1,'1004114.txt','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Bertel_Haarder',5,1,'1004356.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg; instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Bertel_Haarder',5,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004126.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004269.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Flemming, ladies and gentlemen, the senior citizens\' card really should also be a symbol of the tremendous purchasing power enjoyed by senior citizens in Europe. We are all aware of the current strikes about the pensions reform. I think that the best practice model would be appropriate here too. We should demonstrate which kind of best-practice reforms have achieved the target most effectively. I would therefore like to ask you this: does the Commission have any thoughts on how to promote pensioners\' power as consumers in future through best practice and benchmarks?','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Flemming, ladies and gentlemen, the senior citizens\' card really should also be a symbol of the tremendous purchasing power enjoyed by senior citizens in Europe. We are all aware of the current strikes about the pensions reform. I think that the best practice model would be appropriate here too. We should demonstrate which kind of best-practice reforms have achieved the target most effectively. I would therefore like to ask you this: does the Commission have any thoughts on how to promote pensioners\' power as consumers in future through best practice and benchmarks?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004285.txt','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004293.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'100441.txt','Mr President, it would be interesting to know if the Commission is intending to have research carried out in this field, based on the best practice model. Are you intending to create incentives, with a view to ensuring that live transport is carried out in such a way that is actually tolerable for the animals concerned?','Mr President, it would be interesting to know if the Commission is intending to have research carried out in this field, based on the best practice model. Are you intending to create incentives, with a view to ensuring that live transport is carried out in such a way that is actually tolerable for the animals concerned?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004488.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best  practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?','Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best  practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004527.txt','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Best_practice',17,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Best_Western',1,1,'1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bethlehem',1,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Beyond_Security',1,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Biarritz',2,1,'1001119.txt','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Biarritz',2,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bias',1,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bible',1,1,'10045.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away; the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Biblical_Magi',1,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bicameralism',1,1,'1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Big-box_store',1,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Big_Bang',1,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Big_Boys',1,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Big_Brother_(TV_series)',1,1,'1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Big_Idea_Entertainment',1,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bilateralism',1,2,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'1001202.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts’ second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann’s justified criticism!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts’ second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann’s justified criticism!'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'1001231.txt','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'100153.txt','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'1004384.txt','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Bill_(law)',9,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bill_Clinton',2,1,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bill_Clinton',2,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Binaural_(album)',1,1,'1004237.txt','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Binding_over',1,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Biodegradable_waste',1,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Biodiesel',2,1,'1004480.txt','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Biodiesel',2,1,'1004579.txt','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Biodiversity',3,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Biodiversity',3,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Biodiversity',3,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Biodiversity_action_plan',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bioenergy',1,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bioethics',1,1,'100117.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biofuel',6,1,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biofuel',6,1,'100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biofuel',6,1,'100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biofuel',6,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biofuel',6,1,'1004480.txt','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biofuel',6,1,'1004579.txt','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biogas',6,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biogas',6,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biogas',6,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biogas',6,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biogas',6,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biogas',6,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Biological_warfare',1,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Biology',1,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biomass',6,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biomass',6,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biomass',6,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biomass',6,1,'100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biomass',6,1,'1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Biomass',6,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Biometrics',1,1,'1004317.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Biostatistics',3,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Biostatistics',3,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Biostatistics',3,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'1004272.txt','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Biotechnology',9,1,'1004617.txt','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector; we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Biotope',1,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bird',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Birth_control',3,1,'1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Birth_control',3,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Birth_control',3,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Birth_rate',1,2,'1004247.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bit_stuffing',1,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Blackmail',2,1,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Blackmail',2,1,'1004158.txt','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blacksmith',1,1,'1004332.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black; the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Black_hole',1,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blair_House_Agreement',1,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blank_Check_(film)',1,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bleeding',1,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Block_Exemption_Regulation',1,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blood_donation',1,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blood_plasma',1,2,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blood_product',1,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blood_substitute',1,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blood_transfusion',1,1,'1001120.txt','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Blueprint',1,1,'1004470.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Board_of_directors',2,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Board_of_directors',2,1,'1004533.txt','Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor. Firstly, I should like to say that Amendment No 118 does not replace Amendment No 46 in fact both need to be put to the vote. Secondly, with your permission, I have an oral amendment to propose to Amendment No 118. If the change were to be adopted I would be able to vote in favour of Amendment No 118. The change is as follows: instead of the word ‘exemption’ the words ‘this restriction’ should be added, and after ‘after legal personality’ we add, ‘only apply to the institutions responsible for the administration and management of such IORPs, if this restriction cannot be enforced under relevant national law against IORPs without legal personality.’ If this oral amendment is accepted – and I have agreed it with the Member who tabled the amendment – then I would be able to support a vote in favour.','Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor. Firstly, I should like to say that Amendment No 118 does not replace Amendment No 46; in fact both need to be put to the vote. Secondly, with your permission, I have an oral amendment to propose to Amendment No 118. If the change were to be adopted I would be able to vote in favour of Amendment No 118. The change is as follows: instead of the word ‘exemption’ the words ‘this restriction’ should be added, and after ‘after legal personality’ we add, ‘only apply to the institutions responsible for the administration and management of such IORPs, if this restriction cannot be enforced under relevant national law against IORPs without legal personality.’ If this oral amendment is accepted – and I have agreed it with the Member who tabled the amendment – then I would be able to support a vote in favour.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'BoDeans',1,1,'10029.txt','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bodies_of_the_European_Union',1,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bohunice,_Levice_District',3,1,'1001132.txt','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bohunice,_Levice_District',3,1,'1001250.txt','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bohunice,_Levice_District',3,1,'100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bohunice_(Prachatice_District)',3,1,'1001138.txt','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bohunice_(Prachatice_District)',3,1,'1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bohunice_(Prachatice_District)',3,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bologna_Process',1,1,'1004312.txt','The Commission has, at the request of Parliament, submitted two framework directives. As these are within the competence of the European Institutions, we have voted to approve them, even though we do not agree with everything that they contain.','The Commission has, at the request of Parliament, submitted two framework directives. As these are within the competence of the European Institutions, we have voted to approve them, even though we do not agree with everything that they contain.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bond_(finance)',2,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bond_(finance)',2,1,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bone_fracture',1,1,'1004155.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bone_meal',2,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Bone_meal',2,1,'1004640.txt','Mr President, this debate is already overdue because the BSE crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. We currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. It is because of the BSE crisis that we are pressed for time. When, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in Europe? Will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs?','Mr President, this debate is already overdue because the BSE crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. We currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. It is because of the BSE crisis that we are pressed for time. When, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in Europe? Will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bonn',1,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Border',3,1,'1001222.txt','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.'),(17.427428970939083,5.809142990313028,1000,'Border',3,3,'1004333.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Border',3,2,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Borders_and_Time',1,1,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Border_control',2,1,'1004514.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause)  What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo  instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause)  What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all; see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo ; instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Border_control',2,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Botswana',1,1,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'1001213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regard this amendment of the Directive on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs as a step in the right direction on a long road. Its aims are clear and undisputed. The first aim is to create traceability of foodstuffs back to their origins, in other words maximum transparency. The second is to restore consumer confidence in European food products after the BSE crisis and the dioxin scandal. I believe that reversal of the burden of proof, as proposed in Amendment No 4, is absolutely essential if these aims are to be achieved. The food industry has the necessary information to hand. For those outside the industry, it is sometimes utterly impossible to obtain this information. The present proposal is the first in a series of initiatives based on the White Paper on food safety. It is a start. The Union certainly cannot rest on these laurels. A long road lies ahead of us.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regard this amendment of the Directive on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs as a step in the right direction on a long road. Its aims are clear and undisputed. The first aim is to create traceability of foodstuffs back to their origins, in other words maximum transparency. The second is to restore consumer confidence in European food products after the BSE crisis and the dioxin scandal. I believe that reversal of the burden of proof, as proposed in Amendment No 4, is absolutely essential if these aims are to be achieved. The food industry has the necessary information to hand. For those outside the industry, it is sometimes utterly impossible to obtain this information. The present proposal is the first in a series of initiatives based on the White Paper on food safety. It is a start. The Union certainly cannot rest on these laurels. A long road lies ahead of us.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'1001225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,1,'1001233.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'1001257.txt','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'100159.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,1,'1004151.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,1,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,1,'1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,1,'1004435.txt','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,1,'1004562.txt','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'1004623.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy',17,2,'1004640.txt','Mr President, this debate is already overdue because the BSE crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. We currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. It is because of the BSE crisis that we are pressed for time. When, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in Europe? Will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs?','Mr President, this debate is already overdue because the BSE crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. We currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. It is because of the BSE crisis that we are pressed for time. When, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in Europe? Will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Boxing',1,1,'1004117.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I found out today that France has banned rugby. That is fine by me. However, my question is this: do you think that boxing is really a sport which should be encouraged, and do you think that boxing is especially conducive to the morals and ethical values of young people?','Mr President, Commissioner, I found out today that France has banned rugby. That is fine by me. However, my question is this: do you think that boxing is really a sport which should be encouraged, and do you think that boxing is especially conducive to the morals and ethical values of young people?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Boycott',2,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Boycott',2,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bracket',1,1,'100243.txt','Mr President, I have just two comments to make. Firstly, the German translation of recital A is incorrect, so please use the English version here. A further point is this: in our calls to the Commission, a mistake has crept in to paragraph 2. I would ask you to delete the following words, as they make no sense in legal terms. After the words ‘WIPO Treaty’, the following four words – ‘on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT)’ must be deleted. It is incorrect. ‘WIPO Treaty’ should stand, and the following four words plus the parentheses must be deleted.','Mr President, I have just two comments to make. Firstly, the German translation of recital A is incorrect, so please use the English version here. A further point is this: in our calls to the Commission, a mistake has crept in to paragraph 2. I would ask you to delete the following words, as they make no sense in legal terms. After the words ‘WIPO Treaty’, the following four words – ‘on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT)’ must be deleted. It is incorrect. ‘WIPO Treaty’ should stand, and the following four words plus the parentheses must be deleted.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Brainpower',1,1,'1004444.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Brand_piracy',1,1,'1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Brass_Tacks_(Pakistani_TV_series)',1,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bratislava',1,1,'1004534.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your initiative. The citizens want enlargement to build visible bridges. The Slovak government seeks a bridge in the form of the joining of Vienna and Bratislava airports into a mega-airport with a \'Transrapid\' rail line to improve transport links. This could well be the first stage of the Paris-Vienna route you have mentioned. I believe it would be a very important initiative to take it onward as far as Budapest. We also have, however, the shipping junction on the Danube, and in the long run this would become a triple junction. Do you think this programme could also facilitate the financing of junctions of this sort?','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your initiative. The citizens want enlargement to build visible bridges. The Slovak government seeks a bridge in the form of the joining of Vienna and Bratislava airports into a mega-airport with a \'Transrapid\' rail line to improve transport links. This could well be the first stage of the Paris-Vienna route you have mentioned. I believe it would be a very important initiative to take it onward as far as Budapest. We also have, however, the shipping junction on the Danube, and in the long run this would become a triple junction. Do you think this programme could also facilitate the financing of junctions of this sort?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bratislava_1',1,1,'100455.txt','Mr President, enlargement presents us with really interesting tasks. I believe it to be important to the public that we should build visible bridges, one example of which is the bridge between Vienna and Bratislava. I believe that we should in fact, as part of the TEN programme – the Trans-European Networks – start on the building of visible bridges. I wish to urge the Commission to do everything possible to enable the public to see that these bridges are a guarantee of Europe\'s future.','Mr President, enlargement presents us with really interesting tasks. I believe it to be important to the public that we should build visible bridges, one example of which is the bridge between Vienna and Bratislava. I believe that we should in fact, as part of the TEN programme – the Trans-European Networks – start on the building of visible bridges. I wish to urge the Commission to do everything possible to enable the public to see that these bridges are a guarantee of Europe\'s future.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Brazil',3,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Brazil',3,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Brazil',3,1,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Breach_of_contract',1,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Break_a_leg',1,1,'10028.txt','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused; as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Brenner_Base_Tunnel',1,1,'100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Brenner_Pass',5,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Brenner_Pass',5,1,'1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Brenner_Pass',5,1,'1004337.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Brenner_Pass',5,1,'1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Brenner_Pass',5,1,'1004590.txt','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Brenner_Railway',1,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bretton_Woods_system',1,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bribery',1,1,'10016.txt','Mr President, every day, the advocates of a war in the Middle East resort to ever weaker and ever less credible arguments. We are obliged to watch as undisguised attempts are made in the Security Council to use economic aid as a bribe to induce African states to consent to war. Since this House\'s last debate on war in Iraq, though, encouraging things have happened. For the time being, at least, the Turkish parliament has refused to allow the deployment of troops on Turkish territory. In Great Britain, over two hundred Labour Members of Parliament have expressed their opposition to a war. They deserve our respect. Those who oppose the war in Iraq that is being planned are no foes of the United States, but rather defenders of civilisation.','Mr President, every day, the advocates of a war in the Middle East resort to ever weaker and ever less credible arguments. We are obliged to watch as undisguised attempts are made in the Security Council to use economic aid as a bribe to induce African states to consent to war. Since this House\'s last debate on war in Iraq, though, encouraging things have happened. For the time being, at least, the Turkish parliament has refused to allow the deployment of troops on Turkish territory. In Great Britain, over two hundred Labour Members of Parliament have expressed their opposition to a war. They deserve our respect. Those who oppose the war in Iraq that is being planned are no foes of the United States, but rather defenders of civilisation.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'British_Airways',1,1,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Broadcasting',1,1,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Broker',1,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Brokered_convention',1,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bruno_Kreisky',1,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'100160.txt','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'100286.txt','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004150.txt','Mr President, I actually wanted just to say on the record that there are an increasing number of cases here in Brussels of bagsnatchers smashing in the side windows of cars and women drivers getting injured in the process. I would like to ask that this be noted and consideration given to the possibility of doing something about this.','Mr President, I actually wanted just to say on the record that there are an increasing number of cases here in Brussels of bagsnatchers smashing in the side windows of cars and women drivers getting injured in the process. I would like to ask that this be noted and consideration given to the possibility of doing something about this.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004220.txt','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004222.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have a question about security in Brussels. We know that the official statistics that are collected on this issue often do not reflect reality because many members of the public are no longer willing to report crimes to the police. Are there any arrangements in place or any opportunities for us not to rely solely on police statistics but also to commission studies in order to obtain an accurate picture of the real crime situation and especially on how to combat crime effectively in future?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have a question about security in Brussels. We know that the official statistics that are collected on this issue often do not reflect reality because many members of the public are no longer willing to report crimes to the police. Are there any arrangements in place or any opportunities for us not to rely solely on police statistics but also to commission studies in order to obtain an accurate picture of the real crime situation and especially on how to combat crime effectively in future?'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004240.txt','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004342.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change; it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004520.txt','Madam President, last week, the MEP Karla Peijs was attacked in Brussels. I would urge you to approach the Belgian Government again and to see to it that security levels are stepped up in Brussels. (Applause)','Madam President, last week, the MEP Karla Peijs was attacked in Brussels. I would urge you to approach the Belgian Government again and to see to it that security levels are stepped up in Brussels. (Applause)'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004543.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004602.txt','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.'),(3.575550768798933,3.575550768798933,1000,'Brussels',28,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Buchenwald_concentration_camp',1,1,'100133.txt','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Budapest',1,1,'1004534.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your initiative. The citizens want enlargement to build visible bridges. The Slovak government seeks a bridge in the form of the joining of Vienna and Bratislava airports into a mega-airport with a \'Transrapid\' rail line to improve transport links. This could well be the first stage of the Paris-Vienna route you have mentioned. I believe it would be a very important initiative to take it onward as far as Budapest. We also have, however, the shipping junction on the Danube, and in the long run this would become a triple junction. Do you think this programme could also facilitate the financing of junctions of this sort?','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your initiative. The citizens want enlargement to build visible bridges. The Slovak government seeks a bridge in the form of the joining of Vienna and Bratislava airports into a mega-airport with a \'Transrapid\' rail line to improve transport links. This could well be the first stage of the Paris-Vienna route you have mentioned. I believe it would be a very important initiative to take it onward as far as Budapest. We also have, however, the shipping junction on the Danube, and in the long run this would become a triple junction. Do you think this programme could also facilitate the financing of junctions of this sort?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1001191.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1001216.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1001293.txt','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1001295.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1004263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1004400.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financial effects are, of course, considerable, and so I would be interested to know to what extent the Lisbon Process – showing as it does the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries – has been taken into account in the planning, whether that will be shown in specific Budget lines and what strategies you are envisaging for this.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financial effects are, of course, considerable, and so I would be interested to know to what extent the Lisbon Process – showing as it does the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries – has been taken into account in the planning, whether that will be shown in specific Budget lines and what strategies you are envisaging for this.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Budget',17,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Budgetary_policy',2,1,'1004448.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Budgetary_policy',2,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Budget_of_the_European_Union',7,1,'1001121.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Budget_of_the_European_Union',7,1,'1001160.txt','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Budget_of_the_European_Union',7,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Budget_of_the_European_Union',7,1,'1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Budget_of_the_European_Union',7,1,'100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Budget_of_the_European_Union',7,1,'1004320.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, it would interest me to know, whether you would deem it useful to comb systematically through all the items in the EU budget in order to establish which of them are conducive to sustainable development? Could we use a best-practice method to identify the budget lines with which we actually do anything substantive to promote sustainable development? Perhaps we could also carry out a benchmarking exercise so that the development of the individual budget lines could be observed. Do you believe that the best-practice method could optimise our performance?','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, it would interest me to know, whether you would deem it useful to comb systematically through all the items in the EU budget in order to establish which of them are conducive to sustainable development? Could we use a best-practice method to identify the budget lines with which we actually do anything substantive to promote sustainable development? Perhaps we could also carry out a benchmarking exercise so that the development of the individual budget lines could be observed. Do you believe that the best-practice method could optimise our performance?'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Budget_of_the_European_Union',7,1,'1004359.txt','My second question relates to employment policy for the year 2000, which you voted on here today. The same question comes up time and time again: to what extent is the budget of the European Union examined in order to ascertain which budget lines foster employment? Some expenditure certainly fosters employment by creating new jobs and new undertakings, some budget lines secure existing jobs and some budget lines destroy jobs. Has any provision been made here for a scientific study or are there any studies which illustrate which expenditure or income we can use to make a positive impact on European employment policy?','My second question relates to employment policy for the year 2000, which you voted on here today. The same question comes up time and time again: to what extent is the budget of the European Union examined in order to ascertain which budget lines foster employment? Some expenditure certainly fosters employment by creating new jobs and new undertakings, some budget lines secure existing jobs and some budget lines destroy jobs. Has any provision been made here for a scientific study or are there any studies which illustrate which expenditure or income we can use to make a positive impact on European employment policy?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bülent_Ecevit',1,1,'1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bulgaria',3,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bulgaria',3,1,'100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Bulgaria',3,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bundesgesetzblatt_(Austria)',1,1,'1004289.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1001153.txt','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1001250.txt','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1001272.txt','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100134.txt','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004102.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(6.593674732673825,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,2,'1004131.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker; it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(6.593674732673825,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,2,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004318.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004335.txt','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004414.txt','On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market.','On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(3.2968373663369124,3.2968373663369124,1000,'Bureaucracy',37,1,'1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Burnishing_(pottery)',1,1,'1001173.txt','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Bus',1,1,'1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001111.txt','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001115.txt','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001177.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001178.txt','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001222.txt','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1001272.txt','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004131.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker; it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004139.txt','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is; this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004142.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004187.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004197.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines; it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here; I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business; there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004333.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004409.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004419.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this directive is, without doubt, the most important directive for the small and family-run businesses of Europe. A good day’s work deserves a good day’s pay. But some have had to wait for it longer than others. The stronger the partner, the more power he has to make a business wait. Here, for the first time, we have a regulation which ensures that the company’s liquidity is secured once the service has been provided, and within a foreseeable period of time. I am delighted that we are debating today in the small circle, because you can see that this directive is totally uncontested and that the European Parliament stands fully behind this directive. We know that some 450,000 jobs are lost every year as the result of late payments. When we talk about job security and job creation, then we have a very important and crucial directive here which helps us to secure 450,000 jobs a year in Europe. That deserves the headlines in the press but, as you know, the fight for jobs is already taken for granted. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is making such an important contribution to this. This initiative was intensively promoted to start with by Marianne Thyssen, Mr Folias and Mr Murphy and we are proud of such an excellent result in the House. Payment within 30 days, precautions to ensure that payments are actually made and that the company receives the money within 90 days. It is a sensational result. Congratulations! I am proud to be a member of this Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this directive is, without doubt, the most important directive for the small and family-run businesses of Europe. A good day’s work deserves a good day’s pay. But some have had to wait for it longer than others. The stronger the partner, the more power he has to make a business wait. Here, for the first time, we have a regulation which ensures that the company’s liquidity is secured once the service has been provided, and within a foreseeable period of time. I am delighted that we are debating today in the small circle, because you can see that this directive is totally uncontested and that the European Parliament stands fully behind this directive. We know that some 450,000 jobs are lost every year as the result of late payments. When we talk about job security and job creation, then we have a very important and crucial directive here which helps us to secure 450,000 jobs a year in Europe. That deserves the headlines in the press but, as you know, the fight for jobs is already taken for granted. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is making such an important contribution to this. This initiative was intensively promoted to start with by Marianne Thyssen, Mr Folias and Mr Murphy and we are proud of such an excellent result in the House. Payment within 30 days, precautions to ensure that payments are actually made and that the company receives the money within 90 days. It is a sensational result. Congratulations! I am proud to be a member of this Parliament.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(5.10209290450509,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,2,'1004500.txt','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004584.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area; we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100462.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(2.551046452252545,2.551046452252545,1000,'Business',78,1,'100463.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production; connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield; moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Business_administration',2,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Business_administration',2,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Business_cycle',5,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Business_cycle',5,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Business_cycle',5,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Business_cycle',5,2,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Business_cycle',5,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Business_method_patent',1,1,'1004249.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Business_operations',2,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Business_operations',2,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Business_process',1,1,'1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Butter',1,1,'1001144.txt','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Buzzword',1,1,'1004422.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'By_Common_Consent',1,2,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cabinet_(government)',1,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cable_car',1,2,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cadmium',1,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Call_for_bids',1,1,'1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Call_Me_No_One',1,1,'1001227.txt','Mr President, I only wanted to ask Mrs Flemming not to call me “no one”!','Mr President, I only wanted to ask Mrs Flemming not to call me “no one”!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Calvados_(department)',1,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Calvin_Klein',1,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Camelina',1,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Camouflage',1,1,'100232.txt','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Canadian_Hot_100',1,1,'1004604.txt','Mr President, I think they did not ring the bell for long enough, and you can see what happened – no one is here! So could you make sure they ring it longer and louder in future? (Laughter)','Mr President, I think they did not ring the bell for long enough, and you can see what happened – no one is here! So could you make sure they ring it longer and louder in future? (Laughter)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cancer',1,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cancún',2,1,'1004131.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker; it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cancún',2,1,'1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cannabis_(drug)',2,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cannabis_(drug)',2,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cannes_Film_Festival',1,1,'100275.txt','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Canon_EOS_flash_system',1,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)',2,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)',2,1,'1001148.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Capacity_utilization',1,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capitalism',5,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capitalism',5,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capitalism',5,1,'100287.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capitalism',5,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capitalism',5,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Capital_(economics)',12,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Capital_accumulation',1,1,'1001256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Capital_flight',2,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Capital_flight',2,1,'1004392.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Capital_formation',1,1,'1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Capital_market',6,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Capital_market',6,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Capital_market',6,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Capital_market',6,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Capital_market',6,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Capital_market',6,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capital_punishment',5,1,'100175.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capital_punishment',5,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capital_punishment',5,1,'1004241.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would ask Mrs Izquierdo Rojo to adhere to the formalities of this House. We have to understand that the President of the Council’s function is, of course, simply to perform the Council’s duties, and that he does not bear responsibility for the individual Member States. It is for that reason that I want to ask whether it is actually known whether it was possible to liberate from Iraqi prisons political detainees who would otherwise have faced the death penalty?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would ask Mrs Izquierdo Rojo to adhere to the formalities of this House. We have to understand that the President of the Council’s function is, of course, simply to perform the Council’s duties, and that he does not bear responsibility for the individual Member States. It is for that reason that I want to ask whether it is actually known whether it was possible to liberate from Iraqi prisons political detainees who would otherwise have faced the death penalty?'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capital_punishment',5,1,'1004515.txt','Madam President, I am amazed that an honourable Member should describe euthanasia as a matter for national criminal jurisdiction covered by subsidiarity. We are, of course, all very proud and gratified that the death penalty does not exist in a single Member State of the European Union, because the sanctity of human life is something that should unite us all. (Applause)','Madam President, I am amazed that an honourable Member should describe euthanasia as a matter for national criminal jurisdiction covered by subsidiarity. We are, of course, all very proud and gratified that the death penalty does not exist in a single Member State of the European Union, because the sanctity of human life is something that should unite us all. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Capital_punishment',5,1,'1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Capital_structure',1,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Car',3,1,'1004242.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions; all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Car',3,1,'1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Car',3,1,'1004566.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Carbon_dioxide',1,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Carbon_monoxide',2,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Carbon_monoxide',2,1,'1004589.txt','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Carcinogen',2,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Carcinogen',2,2,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cardiff',1,1,'1004305.txt','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Card_marking',1,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cargo',1,1,'1004596.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Caribbean',1,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Carinthia',3,1,'1001155.txt','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Carinthia',3,1,'1001174.txt','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Carinthia',3,1,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Carlo_Fatuzzo',2,1,'1001207.txt','Mr President, I have had a dream in which Mr Fatuzzo\'s daughter phoned up my son, who is also studying law, and asked him whether he approved of the way I voted on Mr Duff\'s report. I am unable to give out his response to this, as I awoke with something of a shock. I therefore want to make it perfectly clear that we voted in favour of the report even though I see some of the problems as being the other way around. My primary difference of opinion with the rapporteur is that I believe that the possible problem of the supreme courts coming to divergent judgments in matters of basic rights has not been resolved. As a former supreme court judge, I know what I am talking about. Despite this, the institutionalisation of basic rights prevails, and so the vote has been in favour of the report as a whole.','Mr President, I have had a dream in which Mr Fatuzzo\'s daughter phoned up my son, who is also studying law, and asked him whether he approved of the way I voted on Mr Duff\'s report. I am unable to give out his response to this, as I awoke with something of a shock. I therefore want to make it perfectly clear that we voted in favour of the report even though I see some of the problems as being the other way around. My primary difference of opinion with the rapporteur is that I believe that the possible problem of the supreme courts coming to divergent judgments in matters of basic rights has not been resolved. As a former supreme court judge, I know what I am talking about. Despite this, the institutionalisation of basic rights prevails, and so the vote has been in favour of the report as a whole.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Carlo_Fatuzzo',2,1,'100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Carl_Schmitt',1,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Carole_King',3,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Carole_King',3,1,'1004240.txt','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Carole_King',3,1,'1004602.txt','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Caroline_Lucas',1,1,'1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Carriageway',1,1,'1004488.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best  practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?','Mr President, Commissioner, a lot of accidents involving two-wheeled vehicles occur mainly as a result of road works, barriers, divided carriageways, sections of road where the way is unclear. Is it also planned to develop a kind of best  practice or a benchmark system for defusing accident black spots, which after all are known from past experience, so that in future road works will serve to make traffic safer and fewer accidents happen?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Carrot',1,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cartel',2,1,'100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cartel',2,2,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Caspian_Sea',3,1,'1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Caspian_Sea',3,1,'1001114.txt','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Caspian_Sea',3,1,'100146.txt','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cat',1,1,'1004205.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Catalytic_converter',1,1,'1004215.txt','Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner\'s heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)','Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner\'s heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Catholic_Church',1,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cattle',5,1,'1001225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cattle',5,1,'10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cattle',5,1,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cattle',5,1,'1004562.txt','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cattle',5,1,'1004620.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Caucasus',4,1,'1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Caucasus',4,1,'1001114.txt','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Caucasus',4,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Caucasus',4,1,'100146.txt','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001149.txt','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001161.txt','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001165.txt','The reduction in the incidence of suspected fraud and irregularities in 2001, by 37% over against the preceding year, obscures the report\'s real message, which is a powerful one. The reality is that, in comparison to previous years, this is the second highest level that figures for suspected fraud have reached. These results, which emerge from the report, give cause for concern. Although there have been improvements in the combating of fraud, it seems utterly impossible to get misuse or the irregular use of EU funds under control. I repeat my long-standing criticism that the structures mean that abuses are inherent in the system. I appeal to the Member States to make greater efforts in this area in order to put an end to these abuses. Cooperation with other Member States, as well as closer checks at home, is absolutely vital, and not just in view of the imminent enlargement.','The reduction in the incidence of suspected fraud and irregularities in 2001, by 37% over against the preceding year, obscures the report\'s real message, which is a powerful one. The reality is that, in comparison to previous years, this is the second highest level that figures for suspected fraud have reached. These results, which emerge from the report, give cause for concern. Although there have been improvements in the combating of fraud, it seems utterly impossible to get misuse or the irregular use of EU funds under control. I repeat my long-standing criticism that the structures mean that abuses are inherent in the system. I appeal to the Member States to make greater efforts in this area in order to put an end to these abuses. Cooperation with other Member States, as well as closer checks at home, is absolutely vital, and not just in view of the imminent enlargement.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001171.txt','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001221.txt','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001271.txt','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100146.txt','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100278.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or Lingua. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or \"Lingua\". Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004318.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004396.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004417.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff; the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004484.txt','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(5.729408022281174,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,2,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(2.864704011140587,2.864704011140587,1000,'Causality',57,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cause_of_action',1,1,'100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Celluloid_Heroes',1,1,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100148.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100177.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100186.txt','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100252.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’ they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’; they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness; we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100266.txt','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1004238.txt','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1004594.txt','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Censorship',18,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Central_Asia',3,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Central_Asia',3,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Central_Asia',3,1,'1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Central_bank',1,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Central_Eastern_Alps',1,1,'100440.txt','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'1001222.txt','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,2,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Central_Europe',12,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Central_European_Free_Trade_Agreement',1,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Central_government',1,1,'1004401.txt','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Central_heating',1,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cent_(currency)',1,1,'1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cereal',1,1,'1001253.txt','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cernavodă_Nuclear_Power_Plant',1,1,'1004385.txt','), I would like explicitly to emphasise that ‘new’ atomic power stations also includes those that are to be ‘completed’ (such as Cernavoda in Romania). I would like to make it clear once again that a ‘new’ atomic power station is also to be understood as meaning the ‘completion’ of an existing one.','), I would like explicitly to emphasise that ‘new’ atomic power stations also includes those that are to be ‘completed’ (such as Cernavoda in Romania). I would like to make it clear once again that a ‘new’ atomic power station is also to be understood as meaning the ‘completion’ of an existing one.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Certification',1,1,'1004137.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'CE_marking',2,1,'1004122.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo; they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'CE_marking',2,1,'1004137.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chain_reaction',1,1,'1001132.txt','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chain_store',1,1,'1001153.txt','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1001243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1001266.txt','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'100183.txt','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'100199.txt','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'100277.txt','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy; even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms; having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried; the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004109.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since I am relatively new to this House, though not new to politics, I would like to begin by saying something about myself. I once presented a youth petition for a referendum for service and justice and against privilege. I have helped to get rules on incompatibility tightened up, worked on new rules for the separation of politics and business, on measures and decrees for greater objectivity in the filling of public sector posts and the setting up of a group of experts for the shaping of a salary structure covering all public functions in my homeland, from the Federal President to the mayors of larger towns. The question of service and justice, mandate, profession and privilege runs through my entire political career and is always a question of the credibility of politics with the citizens. For this very reason I have argued for this question to be put to the Council, because since I have been in this House I have always had the feeling that there is no shortage of rumours, of mutual recriminations in Parliament and Council and between the groups, but no statute. The cause of our problem actually lies in the fact that, although we have all been elected to this House, we are not treated equally. Part of our problem is that we have 15 national electoral laws and no European electoral law, that we do not have one incompatibility rule but several different ones. That is one problem. We have already discussed this topic in 1998, 1999 and in April 2001. The President has told us that we have now almost reached our destination and we therefore wanted to know from the Council what matters are still outstanding and how we will reach our destination. Today again we get no answer from the Council – because that was no answer. I therefore ask myself how close we are to the destination if we cannot clearly say what the outstanding points are. At the same time, I witnessed a press conference this morning at which accusations were raised against everyone who mentions the Rothley report, which is a report from a committee and contains an opinion for the President. I consider such behaviour intolerable and the claims that were made to be untrue, and I ask myself: who is damaging the dignity of this House and the respect in which it is held? Is it those who make reference to a decision by a parliamentary committee or an opinion addressed to the presidency, or those who ignore that decision and want to start a parallel action? No national mandate can be compared with the mandate in the European Parliament. The time involved is greater, the distance is greater and we have less time at home than any of our counterparts. We have a decision from the Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which forms the basis for the President’s talks. We have a group of experts that has come to a conclusion so that no one can say we are arranging things to our own liking. We have the Rothley report and we have the legal situation where we adopt our statute and the Council approves it so it can enter into force. With this question we wanted greater transparency instead of rumours, greater clarity instead of recriminations. We wanted the Council’s answer, which sadly was no answer, to bring us a step closer to the decision we need. Nor do we want to be messed about by political opportunists or the Council’s indecision. I say to you, if we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. We must therefore resist opportunism and single-mindedly go the way we in this Parliament have decided on the basis of the law. We are of course always ready to split the report into a constitutional part and the remainder if they give us detailed reasons for doing so, but sadly this question went unanswered today as well. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since I am relatively new to this House, though not new to politics, I would like to begin by saying something about myself. I once presented a youth petition for a referendum for service and justice and against privilege. I have helped to get rules on incompatibility tightened up, worked on new rules for the separation of politics and business, on measures and decrees for greater objectivity in the filling of public sector posts and the setting up of a group of experts for the shaping of a salary structure covering all public functions in my homeland, from the Federal President to the mayors of larger towns. The question of service and justice, mandate, profession and privilege runs through my entire political career and is always a question of the credibility of politics with the citizens. For this very reason I have argued for this question to be put to the Council, because since I have been in this House I have always had the feeling that there is no shortage of rumours, of mutual recriminations in Parliament and Council and between the groups, but no statute. The cause of our problem actually lies in the fact that, although we have all been elected to this House, we are not treated equally. Part of our problem is that we have 15 national electoral laws and no European electoral law, that we do not have one incompatibility rule but several different ones. That is one problem. We have already discussed this topic in 1998, 1999 and in April 2001. The President has told us that we have now almost reached our destination and we therefore wanted to know from the Council what matters are still outstanding and how we will reach our destination. Today again we get no answer from the Council – because that was no answer. I therefore ask myself how close we are to the destination if we cannot clearly say what the outstanding points are. At the same time, I witnessed a press conference this morning at which accusations were raised against everyone who mentions the Rothley report, which is a report from a committee and contains an opinion for the President. I consider such behaviour intolerable and the claims that were made to be untrue, and I ask myself: who is damaging the dignity of this House and the respect in which it is held? Is it those who make reference to a decision by a parliamentary committee or an opinion addressed to the presidency, or those who ignore that decision and want to start a parallel action? No national mandate can be compared with the mandate in the European Parliament. The time involved is greater, the distance is greater and we have less time at home than any of our counterparts. We have a decision from the Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which forms the basis for the President’s talks. We have a group of experts that has come to a conclusion so that no one can say we are arranging things to our own liking. We have the Rothley report and we have the legal situation where we adopt our statute and the Council approves it so it can enter into force. With this question we wanted greater transparency instead of rumours, greater clarity instead of recriminations. We wanted the Council’s answer, which sadly was no answer, to bring us a step closer to the decision we need. Nor do we want to be messed about by political opportunists or the Council’s indecision. I say to you, if we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. We must therefore resist opportunism and single-mindedly go the way we in this Parliament have decided on the basis of the law. We are of course always ready to split the report into a constitutional part and the remainder if they give us detailed reasons for doing so, but sadly this question went unanswered today as well. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004124.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as an Austrian I am extremely proud of the fact that the Council Presidency has focussed on development in the IT sector. I would be interested to know how the President-in-Office of the Council views the sale by auction of UMTS licences. The proceeds from this sector could create a huge amount of impetus and, above all, boost the Portuguese programme accordingly, if, for example, we were to make the proceeds from the licences that are sold by auction available for research and development, education, training and further education, or for infrastructure. What do you think to the idea of developing incentivisation programmes for the Member States, so as to enable the proceeds to actually be ploughed back into this sector?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as an Austrian I am extremely proud of the fact that the Council Presidency has focussed on development in the IT sector. I would be interested to know how the President-in-Office of the Council views the sale by auction of UMTS licences. The proceeds from this sector could create a huge amount of impetus and, above all, boost the Portuguese programme accordingly, if, for example, we were to make the proceeds from the licences that are sold by auction available for research and development, education, training and further education, or for infrastructure. What do you think to the idea of developing incentivisation programmes for the Member States, so as to enable the proceeds to actually be ploughed back into this sector?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004135.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia\'s application for membership represents a further step towards the stabilisation of this region. Just in the last few minutes we have received bad news from Serbia. A state of emergency was declared there a few minutes ago following the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. I would be interested to know if you intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, given that this development really does give us great cause for concern.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia\'s application for membership represents a further step towards the stabilisation of this region. Just in the last few minutes we have received bad news from Serbia. A state of emergency was declared there a few minutes ago following the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. I would be interested to know if you intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, given that this development really does give us great cause for concern.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004147.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004154.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004162.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you gave the issue of public health a special mention. I would be interested to know how you see the division of responsibilities between the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. What are your priorities here?','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you gave the issue of public health a special mention. I would be interested to know how you see the division of responsibilities between the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. What are your priorities here?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004222.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have a question about security in Brussels. We know that the official statistics that are collected on this issue often do not reflect reality because many members of the public are no longer willing to report crimes to the police. Are there any arrangements in place or any opportunities for us not to rely solely on police statistics but also to commission studies in order to obtain an accurate picture of the real crime situation and especially on how to combat crime effectively in future?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have a question about security in Brussels. We know that the official statistics that are collected on this issue often do not reflect reality because many members of the public are no longer willing to report crimes to the police. Are there any arrangements in place or any opportunities for us not to rely solely on police statistics but also to commission studies in order to obtain an accurate picture of the real crime situation and especially on how to combat crime effectively in future?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004258.txt','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004289.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004365.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004383.txt','Madam President, allow me briefly to correct what the President-in-Office of the Council said. Two heads of government, Mr President-in-Office, have already been reprimanded by their parliaments for the steps which they initiated against Austria. You therefore had no right to speak on behalf of their countries on the contrary, you obviously spoke as the head of a socialist party. At most, Mr President-in-Office, you can therefore only speak of twelve countries.','Madam President, allow me briefly to correct what the President-in-Office of the Council said. Two heads of government, Mr President-in-Office, have already been reprimanded by their parliaments for the steps which they initiated against Austria. You therefore had no right to speak on behalf of their countries; on the contrary, you obviously spoke as the head of a socialist party. At most, Mr President-in-Office, you can therefore only speak of twelve countries.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004386.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004390.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you specifically for mentioning the fact that you are also working on nuclear safety in the Ukraine. I would be interested to know whether it is actually intended to use the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency as a basis for guaranteeing safety there.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you specifically for mentioning the fact that you are also working on nuclear safety in the Ukraine. I would be interested to know whether it is actually intended to use the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency as a basis for guaranteeing safety there.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004391.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that in Macedonia\'s case it is particularly important to consider how the support that we provide can most effectively bring stability to this region. Small and medium-sized enterprises obviously play a pivotal role here. That is why I would be interested to know whether within this support programme that you mentioned, which will provide EUR 135 million for the period from 2000 to 2004, funds are also available to promote small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that in Macedonia\'s case it is particularly important to consider how the support that we provide can most effectively bring stability to this region. Small and medium-sized enterprises obviously play a pivotal role here. That is why I would be interested to know whether within this support programme that you mentioned, which will provide EUR 135 million for the period from 2000 to 2004, funds are also available to promote small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004401.txt','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004437.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing; on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another; it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer; our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004438.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, it is clear from your reply that you personally are holding the Council to ransom. It is also clear that your personal prejudices, which bear no relation to the situation in Austria and contradict the experts\' report, also have a great deal of influence on your function as President-in-Office, as can be seen from your itinerary in preparation for the French President\'s and the President-in-Office\'s tour des capitales . My question, therefore, is when do you intend to start performing all your duties in a way which reflects the spirit of Robert Schuman, the content of the experts\' report and the situation in Austria, and leaving your personal prejudices to one side? (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, it is clear from your reply that you personally are holding the Council to ransom. It is also clear that your personal prejudices, which bear no relation to the situation in Austria and contradict the experts\' report, also have a great deal of influence on your function as President-in-Office, as can be seen from your itinerary in preparation for the French President\'s and the President-in-Office\'s tour des capitales . My question, therefore, is when do you intend to start performing all your duties in a way which reflects the spirit of Robert Schuman, the content of the experts\' report and the situation in Austria, and leaving your personal prejudices to one side? (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004454.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004511.txt','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004535.txt','Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.','Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system; on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community; on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal; we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004588.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004609.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this issue does not just concern Spain. For instance, yesterday I got a call from a road haulier from the top of whose lorry immigrants had cut a way in through the cover during the crossing. The British border authorities then arrested these immigrants and the haulier had to pay a fine, although he was unaware immigrants were on board. I therefore put the following supplementary question: what is the Council Presidency thinking of doing to get to grips with this type of activity?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this issue does not just concern Spain. For instance, yesterday I got a call from a road haulier from the top of whose lorry immigrants had cut a way in through the cover during the crossing. The British border authorities then arrested these immigrants and the haulier had to pay a fine, although he was unaware immigrants were on board. I therefore put the following supplementary question: what is the Council Presidency thinking of doing to get to grips with this type of activity?'),(2.900422093704666,2.900422093704666,1000,'Chairman-in-Office',55,1,'1004624.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chalk',1,1,'1004589.txt','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chalkidiki',1,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'1004217.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I want to firmly reject Mr Sylla’s comment that we have a politically-led judiciary in our country, in the Republic of Austria. (Applause)  Secondly I want to note that there are many urgent resolutions that deserve to be discussed in this House. The urgency on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna, tabled by Dr Swoboda, does not deserve any urgent discussion. It was prompted by a purely personal matter concerning Professor Pelinka. He resigned from the Centre’s Management Board voluntarily. The real reason was that he refused to do something which is a matter of course, which is the duty of every Austrian citizen, namely to render account of his activity if he is being paid for it by the Austrian Government. Let someone tell me what that has to do with the European Parliament. So it is easy to understand why we will not endorse recital A of this motion for a resolution and cannot share the concern about this matter. It should also be noted that the Monitoring Centre on racism is based in Vienna, not least thanks to the commitment of the present Chancellor and then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel, and that we are proud to give a home in Vienna to this kind of institution that keeps a watchful eye on xenophobia and racism in all the European countries. For the Centre’s report indicates that no one country is immune from such tendencies. For the rest, Austria has very strict regulations against neo-Nazism and its reactivation. Perhaps it needs pointing out that one sad case, the Omufuma case, was a case that a Socialist minister of the interior had to answer for. Clearly Dr Swoboda was also aware of the embarrassing nature of his first motion, otherwise the basically reasonable and considerably weaker motion for a resolution we can all support would not have come into being. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I want to firmly reject Mr Sylla’s comment that we have a politically-led judiciary in our country, in the Republic of Austria. (Applause)  Secondly I want to note that there are many urgent resolutions that deserve to be discussed in this House. The urgency on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna, tabled by Dr Swoboda, does not deserve any urgent discussion. It was prompted by a purely personal matter concerning Professor Pelinka. He resigned from the Centre’s Management Board voluntarily. The real reason was that he refused to do something which is a matter of course, which is the duty of every Austrian citizen, namely to render account of his activity if he is being paid for it by the Austrian Government. Let someone tell me what that has to do with the European Parliament. So it is easy to understand why we will not endorse recital A of this motion for a resolution and cannot share the concern about this matter. It should also be noted that the Monitoring Centre on racism is based in Vienna, not least thanks to the commitment of the present Chancellor and then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel, and that we are proud to give a home in Vienna to this kind of institution that keeps a watchful eye on xenophobia and racism in all the European countries. For the Centre’s report indicates that no one country is immune from such tendencies. For the rest, Austria has very strict regulations against neo-Nazism and its reactivation. Perhaps it needs pointing out that one sad case, the Omufuma case, was a case that a Socialist minister of the interior had to answer for. Clearly Dr Swoboda was also aware of the embarrassing nature of his first motion, otherwise the basically reasonable and considerably weaker motion for a resolution we can all support would not have come into being. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'100440.txt','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Chancellor',9,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter',1,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Charitable_organization',1,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Charles_Sanders_Peirce',3,1,'1001259.txt','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Charles_Sanders_Peirce',3,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Charles_Sanders_Peirce',3,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Charter',4,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Charter',4,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Charter',4,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Charter',4,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001162.txt','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001219.txt','Mr President, let me say first of all that I appreciate the way we can talk to each other here in a fairly intimate atmosphere. There is no doubt that it is easier to ask important questions than to find the answers to them. The President\'s statement notwithstanding, all of us can only wish these answers to be found, but I want to make allowances all the same for the fact that Laeken saw a very important task performed, that of getting the Convention on track with a president who is not only distinguished but whose appointment also augurs well for the future. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was our most recent opportunity to learn that the success of such a process largely depends on who presides over it, so let me say that the youthful attire of the President-in-Office led me to fear that the Convention would be given a rather ‘young’ and ‘dynamic’ chair. Unlike Mrs Frassoni and Mr Bonde, I was therefore rather pleased to learn that we were still going to give preference to the opinions of those older and wiser – something which marks out the higher cultures. The inauguration of the Convention was, though, the only outstanding achievement. Speaking from an Austrian point of view, I find Point 59 regrettable on the grounds that it has turned out to be very narrow and does not do justice to the need for Europe-wide safety standards.','Mr President, let me say first of all that I appreciate the way we can talk to each other here in a fairly intimate atmosphere. There is no doubt that it is easier to ask important questions than to find the answers to them. The President\'s statement notwithstanding, all of us can only wish these answers to be found, but I want to make allowances all the same for the fact that Laeken saw a very important task performed, that of getting the Convention on track with a president who is not only distinguished but whose appointment also augurs well for the future. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was our most recent opportunity to learn that the success of such a process largely depends on who presides over it, so let me say that the youthful attire of the President-in-Office led me to fear that the Convention would be given a rather ‘young’ and ‘dynamic’ chair. Unlike Mrs Frassoni and Mr Bonde, I was therefore rather pleased to learn that we were still going to give preference to the opinions of those older and wiser – something which marks out the higher cultures. The inauguration of the Convention was, though, the only outstanding achievement. Speaking from an Austrian point of view, I find Point 59 regrettable on the grounds that it has turned out to be very narrow and does not do justice to the need for Europe-wide safety standards.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001234.txt','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001266.txt','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1001288.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100143.txt','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three left overs plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three \"left overs\" plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100158.txt','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100195.txt','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100239.txt','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1004401.txt','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1004586.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it; we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.'),(3.540459448975663,3.540459448975663,1000,'Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union',29,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chat_room',1,1,'1004626.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dialogue with citizens is one of the main issues for us on a daily basis and I would therefore like to know what the Council intends to do to bring the post-Nice process closer to our citizens. What we could do is set up our own chat rooms, for example on the Internet, where citizens could use a search engine to locate specific subjects and browse through subjects of personal interest. I also think it would be a good idea if we provided video streams of debates in Parliament, the Council and the Commission in each language, in order to give citizens an opportunity to become more involved in this dialogue. Do you think this might be something for the Swedish Presidency to focus on after the Lisbon Summit?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dialogue with citizens is one of the main issues for us on a daily basis and I would therefore like to know what the Council intends to do to bring the post-Nice process closer to our citizens. What we could do is set up our own chat rooms, for example on the Internet, where citizens could use a search engine to locate specific subjects and browse through subjects of personal interest. I also think it would be a good idea if we provided video streams of debates in Parliament, the Council and the Commission in each language, in order to give citizens an opportunity to become more involved in this dialogue. Do you think this might be something for the Swedish Presidency to focus on after the Lisbon Summit?'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'1001103.txt','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'1001114.txt','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'1001200.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'1001218.txt','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'100146.txt','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'100174.txt','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Chechnya',10,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Chemical_substance',4,1,'100192.txt','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Chemical_substance',4,1,'1004165.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Chemical_substance',4,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Chemical_substance',4,1,'1004540.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chemical_warfare',1,1,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Chemistry',2,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Chemistry',2,1,'1004484.txt','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cheque',1,1,'1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cher',1,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(9.923690259851648,4.961845129925824,1000,'Chernobyl_disaster',7,2,'1001255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Chernobyl_disaster',7,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Chernobyl_disaster',7,1,'1001303.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Chernobyl_disaster',7,1,'100145.txt','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Chernobyl_disaster',7,1,'1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Chernobyl_disaster',7,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Chernobyl_disaster',7,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cher_Ami',1,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chess',1,1,'10028.txt','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused; as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Chichester',3,1,'100288.txt','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Chichester',3,1,'1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Chichester',3,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1001228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1001247.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word it should be implemented. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word; it should be implemented. (Applause)'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'100148.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'100180.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.'),(7.926632599617394,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,2,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1004220.txt','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?'),(7.926632599617394,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,2,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(7.926632599617394,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,2,'1004345.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1004458.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Child',19,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Childrens_rights',1,1,'1004119.txt','Madam President, I propose to talk about a human rights violation. Many Europeans have been shocked and disgusted over the last few days to discover that in a country with which we are on very friendly terms, and to which we Europeans, especially those in my own country, owe a great debt of gratitude, that is, the United States of America, it is still legally possible to put children on trial and to take them away from their homes in handcuffs and shackles. And I am not talking about seventeen or eighteen-year-old youths, but about ten and eleven-year-old children. This is what has happened to a small slip of a boy with a very high-pitched, young child’s voice, who has been accused of sexually abusing his five-year-old sister. Madam President, I would therefore request that you write a letter to the governor of Colorado and ask him to give this small, mistreated child his fatherly help. Remind him too that the United States of America is the only country apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights. (Loud applause)','Madam President, I propose to talk about a human rights violation. Many Europeans have been shocked and disgusted over the last few days to discover that in a country with which we are on very friendly terms, and to which we Europeans, especially those in my own country, owe a great debt of gratitude, that is, the United States of America, it is still legally possible to put children on trial and to take them away from their homes in handcuffs and shackles. And I am not talking about seventeen or eighteen-year-old youths, but about ten and eleven-year-old children. This is what has happened to a small slip of a boy with a very high-pitched, young child’s voice, who has been accused of sexually abusing his five-year-old sister. Madam President, I would therefore request that you write a letter to the governor of Colorado and ask him to give this small, mistreated child his fatherly help. Remind him too that the United States of America is the only country apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights. (Loud applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Child_abuse',5,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Child_abuse',5,1,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Child_abuse',5,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Child_abuse',5,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Child_abuse',5,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Child_care',1,1,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Child_labour',2,1,'1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Child_labour',2,1,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Child_pornography',3,1,'100197.txt','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Child_pornography',3,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Child_pornography',3,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Child_sexual_abuse',2,1,'1004119.txt','Madam President, I propose to talk about a human rights violation. Many Europeans have been shocked and disgusted over the last few days to discover that in a country with which we are on very friendly terms, and to which we Europeans, especially those in my own country, owe a great debt of gratitude, that is, the United States of America, it is still legally possible to put children on trial and to take them away from their homes in handcuffs and shackles. And I am not talking about seventeen or eighteen-year-old youths, but about ten and eleven-year-old children. This is what has happened to a small slip of a boy with a very high-pitched, young child’s voice, who has been accused of sexually abusing his five-year-old sister. Madam President, I would therefore request that you write a letter to the governor of Colorado and ask him to give this small, mistreated child his fatherly help. Remind him too that the United States of America is the only country apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights. (Loud applause)','Madam President, I propose to talk about a human rights violation. Many Europeans have been shocked and disgusted over the last few days to discover that in a country with which we are on very friendly terms, and to which we Europeans, especially those in my own country, owe a great debt of gratitude, that is, the United States of America, it is still legally possible to put children on trial and to take them away from their homes in handcuffs and shackles. And I am not talking about seventeen or eighteen-year-old youths, but about ten and eleven-year-old children. This is what has happened to a small slip of a boy with a very high-pitched, young child’s voice, who has been accused of sexually abusing his five-year-old sister. Madam President, I would therefore request that you write a letter to the governor of Colorado and ask him to give this small, mistreated child his fatherly help. Remind him too that the United States of America is the only country apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights. (Loud applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Child_sexual_abuse',2,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Chile',2,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Chile',2,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chimpanzee',1,1,'1004613.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'China',3,1,'1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'China',3,1,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'China',3,1,'100436.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15 we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15; we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'China–United_States_relations',1,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chlorofluorocarbon',1,2,'1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Choice',5,2,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Choice',5,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Choice',5,1,'100233.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today; for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure; what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Choice',5,1,'1004149.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Choice',5,1,'100419.txt','One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?','One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chose',1,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Christiaan_van_Velzen',1,1,'100257.txt','Could Mr van Velzen perhaps comment on whether Amendment No 10 now says: “considers it important to deepen…” or “to clarify the following concepts” ?','Could Mr van Velzen perhaps comment on whether Amendment No 10 now says: “considers it important to deepen…” or “to clarify the following concepts” ?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Christian',1,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Christianity',1,2,'1004443.txt','Mr President, I am well aware that an Intergovernmental Conference is currently underway, which, as we know, consists of the Council. One of the questions on the agenda concerns Christian values and the issue of what message should be given in the preamble about the values underlying the European constitution. It would certainly be helpful for us to know what the Italian Presidency’s position is on this matter.','Mr President, I am well aware that an Intergovernmental Conference is currently underway, which, as we know, consists of the Council. One of the questions on the agenda concerns Christian values and the issue of what message should be given in the preamble about the values underlying the European constitution. It would certainly be helpful for us to know what the Italian Presidency’s position is on this matter.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'100426.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004367.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004547.txt','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Christian_democracy',15,1,'1004621.txt','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Christian_right',1,1,'100232.txt','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Christmas',5,1,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Christmas',5,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Christmas',5,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Christmas',5,1,'1004407.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Christmas',5,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Christmas_and_holiday_season',3,1,'1004237.txt','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Christmas_and_holiday_season',3,1,'100447.txt','Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)','Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Christmas_and_holiday_season',3,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Chris_Patten',1,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Church_and_State_(comics)',1,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cigarette',1,1,'1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001106.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001122.txt','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies; but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001133.txt','Mr President, considerations of time have hitherto prevented me from congratulating the rapporteur, but today it is out of conviction that I refrain from doing so. Let me say at the outset that I support Mr Pirker\'s viewpoint, to which I refer in order to avoid repetition. The report raises a number of issues which, as I see it, have not been resolved. How will an equal distribution of applicants for asylum in the EU be achieved if standards vary because Member States are obliged to retain higher standards? How is unrestricted freedom of movement for third-country nationals while their application for asylum is in progress to be reconciled with the public\'s need for security and with concerns that the procedure should be speeded up? How do we explain to our citizens a regulation that ensures applicants for asylum access to the labour market as soon as possible, whilst they themselves may be unemployed? If the way the EU worked were as transparent as we would all like it to be, one would end up wondering how our citizens would vote in response to proposals of this sort.','Mr President, considerations of time have hitherto prevented me from congratulating the rapporteur, but today it is out of conviction that I refrain from doing so. Let me say at the outset that I support Mr Pirker\'s viewpoint, to which I refer in order to avoid repetition. The report raises a number of issues which, as I see it, have not been resolved. How will an equal distribution of applicants for asylum in the EU be achieved if standards vary because Member States are obliged to retain higher standards? How is unrestricted freedom of movement for third-country nationals while their application for asylum is in progress to be reconciled with the public\'s need for security and with concerns that the procedure should be speeded up? How do we explain to our citizens a regulation that ensures applicants for asylum access to the labour market as soon as possible, whilst they themselves may be unemployed? If the way the EU worked were as transparent as we would all like it to be, one would end up wondering how our citizens would vote in response to proposals of this sort.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001148.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001150.txt','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1001185.txt','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found; the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs; European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy; Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1001202.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts’ second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann’s justified criticism!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts’ second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann’s justified criticism!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001246.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1001269.txt','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim less is more. Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim \"less is more\". Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens; the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1001295.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'10013.txt','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100130.txt','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100134.txt','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100147.txt','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100161.txt','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100192.txt','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'100274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004106.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'100414.txt','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss; it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004154.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004190.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004192.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it; that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague; and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism; that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol; and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations; and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100421.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004220.txt','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004311.txt','Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!','Mr President, I agree with Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who said in an interview that the urgency tabled by Mr Swoboda was the wrong course to choose and that he expected a rather more mature approach. I agree with him because in an explanatory statement, which he presented to the House, Mr Swoboda refers to conflicts between the government in Austria and the head of the Monitoring Centre on racism that date back quite some time. It was the time when Viktor Klima, an SPÖ member, was head of the Austrian Government and the government was SPÖ-dominated. It is a delicate matter when a Socialist from Austria does this, but by no means urgent. I endorse what Mr Watson said because here Mr Swoboda is also confirming to the present government that better relations are now being established with this Monitoring Centre. He should be pleased about that, as I and many others are. That again is no reason for urgency; and there is even less reason for urgency when I quote you what the head of this Monitoring Centre says in an interview she authorised. She specifically praises Austria’s new policy towards foreigners and concedes to the government that there has, of course, not been a single xenophobic initiative, whereas there is much progress. She says, much progress, which was not possible under the red-green government; and of course she also says that she is not being hindered in any way in her work. So what is the point of all this, Mr Swoboda? As an Austrian Socialist you are obviously just trying to create a platform for polemics against Austrian. That is shameful for an Austrian and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004366.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004392.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004404.txt','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioners individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Mens second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioner\"s individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Men\"s second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004407.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004436.txt','Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?','Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004479.txt','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004485.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1004524.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004586.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it; we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004610.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004624.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.'),(1.9661128562528327,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,1,'1004625.txt','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas; how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.'),(3.9322257125056654,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,2,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(5.898338568758498,1.9661128562528327,1000,'Citizenship',140,3,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'100111.txt','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'1001160.txt','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'1001180.txt','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'1001288.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'1004139.txt','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is; this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Citizenship_of_the_European_Union',10,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Citizens_band_radio',1,1,'1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Citizens_Union_for_South_Tyrol',1,1,'1004310.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Civilian',2,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Civilian',2,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Civilization',4,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Civilization',4,1,'1001192.txt','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Civilization',4,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Civilization',4,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_and_political_rights',5,1,'100112.txt','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_and_political_rights',5,1,'100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_and_political_rights',5,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_and_political_rights',5,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_and_political_rights',5,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Civil_engineering',1,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_law_(legal_system)',5,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_law_(legal_system)',5,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_law_(legal_system)',5,1,'100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_law_(legal_system)',5,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_law_(legal_system)',5,1,'1004374.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping; politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point; it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Civil_liberties',1,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Civil_service',1,1,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_society',5,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_society',5,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_society',5,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_society',5,1,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Civil_society',5,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Civil_war',1,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Clairvoyance',1,1,'10040.txt','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Class_conflict',3,1,'1001296.txt','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Class_conflict',3,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Class_conflict',3,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Claude_Turmes',2,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Claude_Turmes',2,1,'1004422.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Clean_technology',1,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cliché',1,1,'1001119.txt','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Climate',2,1,'1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Climate',2,2,'1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'1001177.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'100436.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15 we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15; we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'1004526.txt','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax; it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Climate_change',9,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Climate_change_mitigation',1,1,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Clog',1,1,'1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Closer_to_the_Heart',1,1,'1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cloven_hoof',1,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Co-determination',1,1,'1004466.txt','Madam President, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are also very keen to put a stop to fraud in all areas in the Union. (Applause)  We still do not have any right of codetermination in agriculture, which is why our only option is to refer this report back to committee and I urge the House to vote in favour of my motion.','Madam President, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are also very keen to put a stop to fraud in all areas in the Union. (Applause)  We still do not have any right of codetermination in agriculture, which is why our only option is to refer this report back to committee and I urge the House to vote in favour of my motion.'),(20.72326583694641,6.907755278982137,1000,'Coagulation',1,3,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Coal',1,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Coalition_government',2,1,'1001173.txt','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Coalition_government',2,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cobblestone_Runway',1,1,'1004240.txt','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Code_(law)',1,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Code_of_conduct',2,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Code_of_conduct',2,1,'1004470.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'100152.txt','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,2,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,2,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Coercion',11,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Coffee',2,1,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Coffee',2,1,'100231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cogeneration',3,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(17.427428970939083,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cogeneration',3,3,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cogeneration',3,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cognition',3,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cognition',3,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cognition',3,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Coherentism',4,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Coherentism',4,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Coherentism',4,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Coherentism',4,1,'1004610.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Coin',2,1,'1004139.txt','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is; this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Coin',2,1,'1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cold_Feet',1,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cold_War',2,1,'100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cold_War',2,2,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Colin_Campbell_(geologist)',1,1,'1001277.txt','Mr President, this is actually the third oil crisis we have had, but it contrasts sharply with the other two. They were political crises of man-made origin, and they came about in 1973 and 1979 with the fall of the Shah regime. For fifteen years now there have clear indications and studies – for example, Global 2000, the report compiled for Jimmy Carter – to the effect that there would be a real shortage in raw materials by the turn of the century. In other words, the third oil crisis we are experiencing now, is here to stay. Whether the price drops again in the short term is of no consequence because there will be a steady upward trend in the long term. It even says in Colin Campbell’s study – anyone interested in having a copy can get one from me – that there will be a shortage of raw materials, i.e. oil, in the early years of the 21st century, the reason being that the production curve has passed its peak. I therefore believe that even demonstrations are onto a loser, because you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon. We will still have oil, but it will not come cheap. In other words, the price of oil will rise to between USD 40 and 60 in the future. There are enough studies to this effect. Even if they should prove to be wrong, now is the time to consider and analyse them. Nor is it an OPEC crisis, because only 40% of the oil produced comes from OPEC countries the remaining 60% comes from non-OPEC countries. If this was just a man-made crisis, the other oil producers could redress the balance.','Mr President, this is actually the third oil crisis we have had, but it contrasts sharply with the other two. They were political crises of man-made origin, and they came about in 1973 and 1979 with the fall of the Shah regime. For fifteen years now there have clear indications and studies – for example, Global 2000, the report compiled for Jimmy Carter – to the effect that there would be a real shortage in raw materials by the turn of the century. In other words, the third oil crisis we are experiencing now, is here to stay. Whether the price drops again in the short term is of no consequence because there will be a steady upward trend in the long term. It even says in Colin Campbell’s study – anyone interested in having a copy can get one from me – that there will be a shortage of raw materials, i.e. oil, in the early years of the 21st century, the reason being that the production curve has passed its peak. I therefore believe that even demonstrations are onto a loser, because you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon. We will still have oil, but it will not come cheap. In other words, the price of oil will rise to between USD 40 and 60 in the future. There are enough studies to this effect. Even if they should prove to be wrong, now is the time to consider and analyse them. Nor is it an OPEC crisis, because only 40% of the oil produced comes from OPEC countries; the remaining 60% comes from non-OPEC countries. If this was just a man-made crisis, the other oil producers could redress the balance.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Collateral_(finance)',2,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Collateral_(finance)',2,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Collection_agency',1,1,'10022.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Collective_action',1,1,'100130.txt','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Collectivism',4,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Collectivism',4,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Collectivism',4,1,'100216.txt','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Collectivism',4,1,'1004365.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cologne',2,1,'10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cologne',2,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Colombia',1,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Colonialism',4,1,'1001262.txt','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.'),(11.042921835724492,5.521460917862246,1000,'Colonialism',4,2,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Colonialism',4,1,'100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Colonialism',4,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Colorado',1,1,'1004119.txt','Madam President, I propose to talk about a human rights violation. Many Europeans have been shocked and disgusted over the last few days to discover that in a country with which we are on very friendly terms, and to which we Europeans, especially those in my own country, owe a great debt of gratitude, that is, the United States of America, it is still legally possible to put children on trial and to take them away from their homes in handcuffs and shackles. And I am not talking about seventeen or eighteen-year-old youths, but about ten and eleven-year-old children. This is what has happened to a small slip of a boy with a very high-pitched, young child’s voice, who has been accused of sexually abusing his five-year-old sister. Madam President, I would therefore request that you write a letter to the governor of Colorado and ask him to give this small, mistreated child his fatherly help. Remind him too that the United States of America is the only country apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights. (Loud applause)','Madam President, I propose to talk about a human rights violation. Many Europeans have been shocked and disgusted over the last few days to discover that in a country with which we are on very friendly terms, and to which we Europeans, especially those in my own country, owe a great debt of gratitude, that is, the United States of America, it is still legally possible to put children on trial and to take them away from their homes in handcuffs and shackles. And I am not talking about seventeen or eighteen-year-old youths, but about ten and eleven-year-old children. This is what has happened to a small slip of a boy with a very high-pitched, young child’s voice, who has been accused of sexually abusing his five-year-old sister. Madam President, I would therefore request that you write a letter to the governor of Colorado and ask him to give this small, mistreated child his fatherly help. Remind him too that the United States of America is the only country apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the UN Convention on Children’s Rights. (Loud applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Combined_transport',2,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Combined_transport',2,1,'1004596.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Combustion',1,1,'1004167.txt','Mr President, I would like the words \'and sustainable combustion\' added.','Mr President, I would like the words \'and sustainable combustion\' added.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Comitology',2,1,'1004250.txt','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous; quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Comitology',2,1,'1004471.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Commerce',1,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Commercial_law',1,1,'100112.txt','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.'),(12.806093848076635,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,3,'1001106.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,1,'1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.'),(8.537395898717756,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,2,'1004134.txt','Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.','Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them; for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,1,'1004143.txt','Madam President, in that case may I again ask the House to vote to refer the report back to committee.','Madam President, in that case may I again ask the House to vote to refer the report back to committee.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,1,'1004148.txt','Mr President, I wanted to thank the Commission and the Council for making it possible for this document to be adopted today, within four months of its submission, and at first reading. I would also like to extend warm greetings to the delegations from the Austrian National Council and Federal Council, who are in the visitors\' gallery.','Mr President, I wanted to thank the Commission and the Council for making it possible for this document to be adopted today, within four months of its submission, and at first reading. I would also like to extend warm greetings to the delegations from the Austrian National Council and Federal Council, who are in the visitors\' gallery.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(8.537395898717756,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,2,'1004230.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!'),(8.537395898717756,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,2,'1004283.txt','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(8.537395898717756,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,2,'1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,1,'1004368.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,1,'1004467.txt','Madam President, I should like to ask the Commission if it has changed its opinion in the last twelve hours on the proposed amendments adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Agriculture.','Madam President, I should like to ask the Commission if it has changed its opinion in the last twelve hours on the proposed amendments adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Agriculture.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,1,'1004468.txt','Madam President, exactly the same applies to this second decision as what you said for the first decision. Two proposed amendments in this second file are of fundamental importance to the Committee on Agriculture, namely Amendments Nos 28 and 29. I therefore again ask the Commission if it has perhaps revised its opinion here.','Madam President, exactly the same applies to this second decision as what you said for the first decision. Two proposed amendments in this second file are of fundamental importance to the Committee on Agriculture, namely Amendments Nos 28 and 29. I therefore again ask the Commission if it has perhaps revised its opinion here.'),(12.806093848076635,4.268697949358878,1000,'Committee',14,3,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Committee_of_Permanent_Representatives',2,1,'1004141.txt','Mr President, I am interested first and foremost in how relations with Parliament actually stand? Do you envisage the possibility of allowing Parliament to inspect all Coreper and Council documents on the Intranet?','Mr President, I am interested first and foremost in how relations with Parliament actually stand? Do you envisage the possibility of allowing Parliament to inspect all Coreper and Council documents on the Intranet?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Committee_of_Permanent_Representatives',2,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Committee_of_Wise_Men_on_the_Regulation_of_European_Securities_Markets',2,1,'100130.txt','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Committee_of_Wise_Men_on_the_Regulation_of_European_Securities_Markets',2,1,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Committee_on_Toxicity',1,1,'1004289.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Commodity',3,1,'100260.txt','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Commodity',3,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Commodity',3,1,'1004475.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures contained in this directive range from drafting water management plans, comprehensive information and hearing rights, and close cooperation between the Member States, to combating water pollution caused by individual pollutants. And considering how long this Chamber has been trying to introduce a framework directive of this kind, I am pleased to be present here today, and I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on being in the happy position of presenting this report to us. However, it is also extremely important to me to point something out that many people actually take for granted. I would still like to highlight this point though: this directive does not constitute any kind of legal basis for diverting water from a Member State’s territory against its will. And by way of reaffirming this once again, I have introduced an amendment – gratifyingly with the support of a large number of Members – and I would be very pleased if Parliament would endorse my proposed amendment tomorrow. It is all about making it clear that water – and this is not the first time this has been mentioned today – is no ordinary commodity but a resource which belongs to the individual EU Member States and which must be protected and treated with the respect due to it. I am aware, and the previous speaker highlighted this, that there are States in the European Union that have problems with water. I believe that every one of us, in every country, could improve the way in which we manage our water and could make use of it in a cleaner way. This applies to every country. But only when each country has done its utmost to conserve its water resources, when literally everything has been done that could have been done in our own countries, only then, in my view, should it be necessary to start thinking in terms of harmonising water usage.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures contained in this directive range from drafting water management plans, comprehensive information and hearing rights, and close cooperation between the Member States, to combating water pollution caused by individual pollutants. And considering how long this Chamber has been trying to introduce a framework directive of this kind, I am pleased to be present here today, and I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on being in the happy position of presenting this report to us. However, it is also extremely important to me to point something out that many people actually take for granted. I would still like to highlight this point though: this directive does not constitute any kind of legal basis for diverting water from a Member State’s territory against its will. And by way of reaffirming this once again, I have introduced an amendment – gratifyingly with the support of a large number of Members – and I would be very pleased if Parliament would endorse my proposed amendment tomorrow. It is all about making it clear that water – and this is not the first time this has been mentioned today – is no ordinary commodity but a resource which belongs to the individual EU Member States and which must be protected and treated with the respect due to it. I am aware, and the previous speaker highlighted this, that there are States in the European Union that have problems with water. I believe that every one of us, in every country, could improve the way in which we manage our water and could make use of it in a cleaner way. This applies to every country. But only when each country has done its utmost to conserve its water resources, when literally everything has been done that could have been done in our own countries, only then, in my view, should it be necessary to start thinking in terms of harmonising water usage.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Common-pool_resource',1,1,'100123.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Commonwealth_of_Independent_States',2,2,'1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Commonwealth_of_Independent_States',2,2,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Common_Agricultural_Policy',8,1,'10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Common_Agricultural_Policy',8,1,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Common_Agricultural_Policy',8,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Common_Agricultural_Policy',8,1,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Common_Agricultural_Policy',8,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Common_Agricultural_Policy',8,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Common_Agricultural_Policy',8,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Common_Agricultural_Policy',8,1,'100463.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production; connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield; moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1001204.txt','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1001218.txt','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1001221.txt','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1004147.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.'),(8.6856118430392,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,2,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1004365.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1004501.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union; both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it; we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy',13,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Common_good',1,1,'1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Common_land',1,1,'100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'10010.txt','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice; efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime; and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1001120.txt','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1001187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'100280.txt','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004283.txt','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004387.txt','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004439.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control; I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(3.1941832122598295,3.1941832122598295,1000,'Common_law',41,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy',5,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy',5,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy',5,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy',5,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy',5,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Common_sense',1,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1001122.txt','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies; but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1001249.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1001259.txt','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'100134.txt','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004179.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)'),(7.223836825953616,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,2,'1004183.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004301.txt','Madam President, I saw a few boats landing at Parliament this week and notified the security service. Not only were there language difficulties the telephone line was so poor that it was almost impossible to communicate. I would be most obliged if the number on which the security service can be reached could also be clearly displayed in the House, so that if anyone wants to report an incident, they can do so quickly and efficiently.','Madam President, I saw a few boats landing at Parliament this week and notified the security service. Not only were there language difficulties; the telephone line was so poor that it was almost impossible to communicate. I would be most obliged if the number on which the security service can be reached could also be clearly displayed in the House, so that if anyone wants to report an incident, they can do so quickly and efficiently.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004317.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004420.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004588.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Communication',27,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Communication_studies',1,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1001117.txt','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1001250.txt','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(8.399410155739854,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,2,'1004432.txt','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended; to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous; it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes; we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need; they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Communism',15,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'100117.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001260.txt','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001269.txt','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim less is more. Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim \"less is more\". Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens; the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001271.txt','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'100134.txt','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'100186.txt','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004238.txt','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004245.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner you have done an excellent piece of work.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner; you have done an excellent piece of work.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(3.4420193761824107,3.4420193761824107,1000,'Community',32,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Community_forestry',1,1,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Community_method',3,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Community_method',3,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Community_method',3,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,2,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1001209.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,2,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'100153.txt','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004137.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,2,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004232.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, we know that the GATS negotiations are intended to bring a greater degree of prosperity to developing countries, with liberalisation bringing advantages for consumers and generally being aimed at the companies in question. That is why I am interested to know which service sectors are being given priority by the Commission in the negotiations.','Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, we know that the GATS negotiations are intended to bring a greater degree of prosperity to developing countries, with liberalisation bringing advantages for consumers and generally being aimed at the companies in question. That is why I am interested to know which service sectors are being given priority by the Commission in the negotiations.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,2,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004409.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004419.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004448.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004526.txt','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax; it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,2,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004568.txt','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,1,'1004616.txt','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Company',33,2,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Comparative_advantage',1,1,'1001209.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Comparative_advertising',1,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Comparative_law',1,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Compatibilism',2,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Compatibilism',2,1,'1004630.txt','Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.','Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1001102.txt','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages; in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(7.824046010856292,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,2,'100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'100412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(7.824046010856292,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,2,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(7.824046010856292,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,2,'1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Competition',20,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Competition_(economics)',6,1,'1001182.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Competition_(economics)',6,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Competition_(economics)',6,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Competition_(economics)',6,1,'100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Competition_(economics)',6,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Competition_(economics)',6,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'100267.txt','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'100415.txt','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes; they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004190.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004219.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004249.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(6.704814434955447,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,2,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004317.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(6.704814434955447,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,2,'1004374.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping; politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point; it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.'),(6.704814434955447,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,2,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004460.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Echerer most sincerely for the good teamwork and the expertise that characterises it. This report is the latest reason why I will not be the only one to be sorry that you, Mrs Echerer, will not be standing for this Parliament again. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted my opinion unanimously and because of the good teamwork is also able to vote in favour of the Echerer report. In drafting this opinion for the forthcoming debate, including that with the Commission, I and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were concerned primarily with five particular points. Firstly, monopolies must always be exceptions to competition law and there must be sound reasons for them. We know that collecting societies are organised differently in the various Member States and in many they have a monopoly over particular categories of works. There is therefore a definite need to look more closely at, or review, the territorial monopoly structures, but not to reject them outright. Secondly, it is in our opinion important to have transparency in collecting societies, such as showing administrative and licence costs separately in the accounts. Something needs to be done here. Thirdly – and this is related to the second point – there is in many countries no supervision of collecting societies. I therefore expressly welcome paragraph 49 of the Echerer Report with its call for efficient independent control mechanisms in all Member States. Fourthly, my suggestion for a public register that could be accessed electronically, containing all right-holders represented by collecting societies, would make for greater clarity and improved transparency and would certainly also simplify cross-border activity and increase competition. Fifthly and finally, where the fragmentation of rights gives rise to high transaction costs, the introduction of a one-stop shop system could be a more efficient and cheaper way for users and exploiters of rights. I ask the Commission to take the contents of the Echerer report on board in its deliberations. Once again my sincere congratulations and I ask you to vote in favour of this report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Echerer most sincerely for the good teamwork and the expertise that characterises it. This report is the latest reason why I will not be the only one to be sorry that you, Mrs Echerer, will not be standing for this Parliament again. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted my opinion unanimously and because of the good teamwork is also able to vote in favour of the Echerer report. In drafting this opinion for the forthcoming debate, including that with the Commission, I and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were concerned primarily with five particular points. Firstly, monopolies must always be exceptions to competition law and there must be sound reasons for them. We know that collecting societies are organised differently in the various Member States and in many they have a monopoly over particular categories of works. There is therefore a definite need to look more closely at, or review, the territorial monopoly structures, but not to reject them outright. Secondly, it is in our opinion important to have transparency in collecting societies, such as showing administrative and licence costs separately in the accounts. Something needs to be done here. Thirdly – and this is related to the second point – there is in many countries no supervision of collecting societies. I therefore expressly welcome paragraph 49 of the Echerer Report with its call for efficient independent control mechanisms in all Member States. Fourthly, my suggestion for a public register that could be accessed electronically, containing all right-holders represented by collecting societies, would make for greater clarity and improved transparency and would certainly also simplify cross-border activity and increase competition. Fifthly and finally, where the fragmentation of rights gives rise to high transaction costs, the introduction of a one-stop shop system could be a more efficient and cheaper way for users and exploiters of rights. I ask the Commission to take the contents of the Echerer report on board in its deliberations. Once again my sincere congratulations and I ask you to vote in favour of this report.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004476.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(6.704814434955447,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,2,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004568.txt','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.'),(10.05722165243317,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,3,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(6.704814434955447,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,2,'1004616.txt','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004628.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004632.txt','Mr President, this part contradicts a resolution already adopted by this House on the liberal professions. I therefore ask that it be amended along the lines we have already agreed to, so that the oral amendment would read: ‘Considers that the Commission should not only take account of the market situation in applying the provisions of competition law to the liberal professions, but must also bear in mind the social aspects and tasks in the public interest. Calls therefore on the Commission to allow associations of the liberal professions the discretion to take measures to permit them to perform their functions correctly.’','Mr President, this part contradicts a resolution already adopted by this House on the liberal professions. I therefore ask that it be amended along the lines we have already agreed to, so that the oral amendment would read: ‘Considers that the Commission should not only take account of the market situation in applying the provisions of competition law to the liberal professions, but must also bear in mind the social aspects and tasks in the public interest. Calls therefore on the Commission to allow associations of the liberal professions the discretion to take measures to permit them to perform their functions correctly.’'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Competition_law',35,1,'1004637.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Competitiveness',4,1,'1004126.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Competitiveness',4,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Competitiveness',4,1,'1004339.txt','Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?','Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Competitiveness',4,1,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Competitive_advantage',1,1,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Competitors_for_the_Crown_of_Scotland',1,1,'1004135.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia\'s application for membership represents a further step towards the stabilisation of this region. Just in the last few minutes we have received bad news from Serbia. A state of emergency was declared there a few minutes ago following the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. I would be interested to know if you intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, given that this development really does give us great cause for concern.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia\'s application for membership represents a further step towards the stabilisation of this region. Just in the last few minutes we have received bad news from Serbia. A state of emergency was declared there a few minutes ago following the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. I would be interested to know if you intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, given that this development really does give us great cause for concern.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Complement_(set_theory)',1,1,'1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Composite_measure',1,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Compost',1,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Comprehensive_examination',1,1,'1004272.txt','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Compulsory_license',1,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Computer',4,1,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Computer',4,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Computer',4,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Computer',4,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Computer_hardware',1,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Computer_industry',1,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Computer_network',2,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Computer_network',2,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Computer_programming',1,1,'100121.txt','Mr President, paragraph 46 of the report calls on the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety to report to Parliament on the implementation of safety measures for Temelin before accession negotiations are concluded. This requirement is proper and important because the operators are currently not even satisfying key minimum safety requirements such as renovation of the much discussed 28.8 m level. The much criticised quality of unsafe valves has not been improved either. The pipes still do not have a second protective coating as European standards require. The first protective coating is inadequate in any case. The Temelin nuclear power station does not therefore at all satisfy the conditions laid down by the Council working party as agreed in the Melk Process. If this is disregarded, the Commission’s attempt, early this month, to create new safety standards for nuclear power stations can be considered a failure from the outset.','Mr President, paragraph 46 of the report calls on the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety to report to Parliament on the implementation of safety measures for Temelin before accession negotiations are concluded. This requirement is proper and important because the operators are currently not even satisfying key minimum safety requirements such as renovation of the much discussed 28.8 m level. The much criticised quality of unsafe valves has not been improved either. The pipes still do not have a second protective coating as European standards require. The first protective coating is inadequate in any case. The Temelin nuclear power station does not therefore at all satisfy the conditions laid down by the Council working party as agreed in the Melk Process. If this is disregarded, the Commission’s attempt, early this month, to create new safety standards for nuclear power stations can be considered a failure from the outset.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Concentration_of_media_ownership',1,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100119.txt','Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which really addresses the problem, and to thank him for it. Austria has always played an important part when it comes to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and has also contributed more than its fair share to solving the resultant problems. I would particularly like to thank Mr Nassauer for adding to what the rapporteur has said in this respect. However, it is high time a satisfactory pan-European solution was found to this problem. It is not enough just to call for solidarity between all the Member States. As regards reception of persons by the Member States, the Commission proposal only talks about Community solidarity, but this concept needs to be firmed up in the spirit of Article 63(2)(b) of the Treaty. The purpose of the directive as described in Article 1 should also include the idea that displaced persons should be allocated to the Member States with due regard for their absorptive capacity. However, the solidarity mechanism operating between the Member States should also cover both aspects, that is to say both the financial and personal aspects of solidarity.','Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which really addresses the problem, and to thank him for it. Austria has always played an important part when it comes to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and has also contributed more than its fair share to solving the resultant problems. I would particularly like to thank Mr Nassauer for adding to what the rapporteur has said in this respect. However, it is high time a satisfactory pan-European solution was found to this problem. It is not enough just to call for solidarity between all the Member States. As regards reception of persons by the Member States, the Commission proposal only talks about Community solidarity, but this concept needs to be firmed up in the spirit of Article 63(2)(b) of the Treaty. The purpose of the directive as described in Article 1 should also include the idea that displaced persons should be allocated to the Member States with due regard for their absorptive capacity. However, the solidarity mechanism operating between the Member States should also cover both aspects, that is to say both the financial and personal aspects of solidarity.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100278.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or Lingua. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or \"Lingua\". Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100288.txt','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Concept',21,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conceptual_model',4,1,'10021.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conceptual_model',4,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conceptual_model',4,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conceptual_model',4,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Concession_(politics)',1,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Confederation',1,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Conference_call',1,1,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Conference_of_Presidents_of_the_European_Parliament',1,1,'1004152.txt','Mr President, the only thing I wanted to say in response to that is that the Conference of Presidents, which met this morning, is already discussing this topic and that there is to be an official statement by Parliament. We have to put a stop to the way in which rumours are constantly undermining the hard work done in this House. Let us have the names out in the open. If we have the names, we must also take action against the persons concerned. (Applause)','Mr President, the only thing I wanted to say in response to that is that the Conference of Presidents, which met this morning, is already discussing this topic and that there is to be an official statement by Parliament. We have to put a stop to the way in which rumours are constantly undermining the hard work done in this House. Let us have the names out in the open. If we have the names, we must also take action against the persons concerned. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Confessional_writing',1,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Confidence',1,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Confidentiality',5,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Confidentiality',5,1,'1001244.txt','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Confidentiality',5,2,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Confidentiality',5,1,'100286.txt','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Confidentiality',5,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Confirmation_bias',2,1,'1004244.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Confirmation_bias',2,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Conflict_management',1,1,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Conflict_of_interest',2,1,'100280.txt','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Conflict_of_interest',2,1,'1004427.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to say that Mr Hans-Peter Martin has announced the withdrawal of the report on lobbying in industry because of his own personal interest. This is not something that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes it has been done contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and of the coordinator. I just wanted to have it recorded in the minutes of the House that he personally withdrew this report contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and contrary to the statement that he made.','Mr President, I just wanted to say that Mr Hans-Peter Martin has announced the withdrawal of the report on lobbying in industry because of his own personal interest. This is not something that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes; it has been done contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and of the coordinator. I just wanted to have it recorded in the minutes of the House that he personally withdrew this report contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and contrary to the statement that he made.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conflict_resolution',4,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conflict_resolution',4,1,'1001221.txt','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conflict_resolution',4,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conflict_resolution',4,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Conformity',3,1,'1004122.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo; they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Conformity',3,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Conformity',3,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Congenital_disorder',1,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Conglomerate_(company)',3,1,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Conglomerate_(company)',3,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Conglomerate_(company)',3,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Congress_of_Berlin',1,1,'1004623.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Connecticut_Compromise',1,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conscience',4,1,'1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conscience',4,1,'1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conscience',4,1,'1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Conscience',4,1,'1004589.txt','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Consciousness',6,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Consciousness',6,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Consciousness',6,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Consciousness',6,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Consciousness',6,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Consciousness',6,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001125.txt','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001257.txt','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,2,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,2,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100277.txt','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy; even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms; having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried; the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100288.txt','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004270.txt','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004349.txt','Madam President, I just wanted to explain that this directive on a uniform bus for Europe was rejected by all groups at first reading. Then there were 90 pages today there are 150. That is why the European People’s Party has brought in Amendment No 9. I support referring this draft directive back to committee because, after the standardisation of the European cucumber, we do not want the standardisation of the European bus as well. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, I just wanted to explain that this directive on a uniform bus for Europe was rejected by all groups at first reading. Then there were 90 pages; today there are 150. That is why the European People’s Party has brought in Amendment No 9. I support referring this draft directive back to committee because, after the standardisation of the European cucumber, we do not want the standardisation of the European bus as well. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. (Applause from the right)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Conscription',48,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100277.txt','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy; even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms; having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried; the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004368.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'Consensus_decision-making',22,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Consent',2,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Consent',2,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1001214.txt','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences; the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'1004584.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area; we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Consequentialism',16,1,'100462.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Conservation_(ethic)',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Conservation_biology',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Conservatism',1,1,'1004248.txt','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Conspiracy_(criminal)',1,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Constituent_assembly',1,1,'100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,2,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100266.txt','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,2,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,2,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'10029.txt','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,2,'1004250.txt','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous; quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004270.txt','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004356.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg; instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,2,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Constitution',34,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitutional_amendment',3,1,'100153.txt','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitutional_amendment',3,1,'1004384.txt','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitutional_amendment',3,1,'1004467.txt','Madam President, I should like to ask the Commission if it has changed its opinion in the last twelve hours on the proposed amendments adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Agriculture.','Madam President, I should like to ask the Commission if it has changed its opinion in the last twelve hours on the proposed amendments adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Agriculture.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Constitutional_convention_(political_meeting)',1,1,'100239.txt','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)',1,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitutional_law',3,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitutional_law',3,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitutional_law',3,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitution_of_Ireland',3,1,'100239.txt','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitution_of_Ireland',3,1,'1004270.txt','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Constitution_of_Ireland',3,1,'1004443.txt','Mr President, I am well aware that an Intergovernmental Conference is currently underway, which, as we know, consists of the Council. One of the questions on the agenda concerns Christian values and the issue of what message should be given in the preamble about the values underlying the European constitution. It would certainly be helpful for us to know what the Italian Presidency’s position is on this matter.','Mr President, I am well aware that an Intergovernmental Conference is currently underway, which, as we know, consists of the Council. One of the questions on the agenda concerns Christian values and the issue of what message should be given in the preamble about the values underlying the European constitution. It would certainly be helpful for us to know what the Italian Presidency’s position is on this matter.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,1,'1004212.txt','We know that business relations can also be a basis for improvements in political relations, and so my question is this: are there any plans to enhance the overall framework for business relations between small- and medium-sized enterprises or family companies between Europe and South Africa, because that could form a basis on which to create, in the poorer regions, prosperity – which is ultimately also the basis for building peace?','We know that business relations can also be a basis for improvements in political relations, and so my question is this: are there any plans to enhance the overall framework for business relations between small- and medium-sized enterprises or family companies between Europe and South Africa, because that could form a basis on which to create, in the poorer regions, prosperity – which is ultimately also the basis for building peace?'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,1,'1004378.txt','–  Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause)  As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)','–  Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause)  As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,1,'1004403.txt','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(13.815510557964275,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,3,'1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.'),(13.815510557964275,4.605170185988092,1000,'Construction',10,3,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Construction_Products_Directive',1,1,'1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Consultant',1,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'1001157.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004122.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo; they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004128.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'1004137.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004151.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004232.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, we know that the GATS negotiations are intended to bring a greater degree of prosperity to developing countries, with liberalisation bringing advantages for consumers and generally being aimed at the companies in question. That is why I am interested to know which service sectors are being given priority by the Commission in the negotiations.','Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, we know that the GATS negotiations are intended to bring a greater degree of prosperity to developing countries, with liberalisation bringing advantages for consumers and generally being aimed at the companies in question. That is why I am interested to know which service sectors are being given priority by the Commission in the negotiations.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004269.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Flemming, ladies and gentlemen, the senior citizens\' card really should also be a symbol of the tremendous purchasing power enjoyed by senior citizens in Europe. We are all aware of the current strikes about the pensions reform. I think that the best practice model would be appropriate here too. We should demonstrate which kind of best-practice reforms have achieved the target most effectively. I would therefore like to ask you this: does the Commission have any thoughts on how to promote pensioners\' power as consumers in future through best practice and benchmarks?','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Flemming, ladies and gentlemen, the senior citizens\' card really should also be a symbol of the tremendous purchasing power enjoyed by senior citizens in Europe. We are all aware of the current strikes about the pensions reform. I think that the best practice model would be appropriate here too. We should demonstrate which kind of best-practice reforms have achieved the target most effectively. I would therefore like to ask you this: does the Commission have any thoughts on how to promote pensioners\' power as consumers in future through best practice and benchmarks?'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004305.txt','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004477.txt','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles; we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004478.txt','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004579.txt','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(6.158227764914084,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,2,'1004623.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.'),(3.079113882457042,3.079113882457042,1000,'Consumer',46,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'100280.txt','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'1004142.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'1004182.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'1004222.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have a question about security in Brussels. We know that the official statistics that are collected on this issue often do not reflect reality because many members of the public are no longer willing to report crimes to the police. Are there any arrangements in place or any opportunities for us not to rely solely on police statistics but also to commission studies in order to obtain an accurate picture of the real crime situation and especially on how to combat crime effectively in future?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have a question about security in Brussels. We know that the official statistics that are collected on this issue often do not reflect reality because many members of the public are no longer willing to report crimes to the police. Are there any arrangements in place or any opportunities for us not to rely solely on police statistics but also to commission studies in order to obtain an accurate picture of the real crime situation and especially on how to combat crime effectively in future?'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Consumerism',12,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1004151.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1004419.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1004562.txt','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?','Mr President, Commissioner. I share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers. As a producer, it is in my interest to restore consumer confidence in the production of cattle and sheep and related products. My question to you, Commissioner, is this: so far, thank God, Austria has not had a single case of BSE. Will these tests also be carried out in Austria?'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Consumer_confidence',9,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1001152.txt','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1001272.txt','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1001294.txt','Mr President, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','Mr President, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'100225.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes; the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully; it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004137.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(6.247131290103752,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,2,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(6.247131290103752,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,2,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.'),(6.247131290103752,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,2,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004379.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are many reasons why, in principle, I welcome what the Commission has submitted: firstly, because the Commission is sending a signal to the Member States that they are not alone in the problems of migration, refugees and displaced persons secondly, because it at least regulates in part the distribution of the burden and, thirdly, because the Commission is proposing a differentiated package of responsibilities for two different groups, namely recognised refugees and displaced persons, i.e. persons temporarily seeking protection. I welcome the proposal because it clearly defines the target groups, because the acceptance conditions will be improved and the integration of refugees supported, and because the re-integration of temporary refugees will be promoted. However, I do not share the view that Mrs Frahm’s report can be accepted almost without criticism because I consider that measures which go beyond these defined responsibilities are inappropriate. Firstly, the money is not available and, secondly, there are other totally different groups which have a claim to it if you are talking here about groups which are particularly in need of protection, and we are unquestionably talking about persons within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. I also do not support your proposals for measures which are incompatible with the particular groups. When it comes to refugees, the measures should be different to those for displaced persons. You cannot, in the case of displaced persons whose main concern is to return to their homeland, require that the host country integrate them into the labour market. That contradicts the basic intention. However, we must seek to make an amendment when it comes to the allocation of funds, taking the number of refugees or displaced persons per capita of the population of a Member State as the basis. One final point which I would like to mention, and I do not understand why Mrs Frahm does not want this, is that we must also have the option to make money available for refugee reception centres. You reject this and I simply cannot see why, because this is the first point of contact where we can provide specific help, accelerate processes and promote refugee integration. However, in all the proposed measures, we must not fail to recognise that one objective has not been addressed here, namely taking into account the distribution of the refugee burden. Please do so in implementing the measures which are necessary and positive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are many reasons why, in principle, I welcome what the Commission has submitted: firstly, because the Commission is sending a signal to the Member States that they are not alone in the problems of migration, refugees and displaced persons; secondly, because it at least regulates in part the distribution of the burden; and, thirdly, because the Commission is proposing a differentiated package of responsibilities for two different groups, namely recognised refugees and displaced persons, i.e. persons temporarily seeking protection. I welcome the proposal because it clearly defines the target groups, because the acceptance conditions will be improved and the integration of refugees supported, and because the re-integration of temporary refugees will be promoted. However, I do not share the view that Mrs Frahm’s report can be accepted almost without criticism because I consider that measures which go beyond these defined responsibilities are inappropriate. Firstly, the money is not available and, secondly, there are other totally different groups which have a claim to it if you are talking here about groups which are particularly in need of protection, and we are unquestionably talking about persons within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. I also do not support your proposals for measures which are incompatible with the particular groups. When it comes to refugees, the measures should be different to those for displaced persons. You cannot, in the case of displaced persons whose main concern is to return to their homeland, require that the host country integrate them into the labour market. That contradicts the basic intention. However, we must seek to make an amendment when it comes to the allocation of funds, taking the number of refugees or displaced persons per capita of the population of a Member State as the basis. One final point which I would like to mention, and I do not understand why Mrs Frahm does not want this, is that we must also have the option to make money available for refugee reception centres. You reject this and I simply cannot see why, because this is the first point of contact where we can provide specific help, accelerate processes and promote refugee integration. However, in all the proposed measures, we must not fail to recognise that one objective has not been addressed here, namely taking into account the distribution of the refugee burden. Please do so in implementing the measures which are necessary and positive.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004413.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004478.txt','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004540.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004544.txt','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004589.txt','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.','Mr President, we are looking at a proposal for a directive under the Auto-Oil programme, with the aim of improving air quality by the year 2010 by reducing emissions from motor vehicles. I personally feel that the Council has included many highly important provisions in its common position, such as reducing emission limits for carbon monoxide by October 2000 or 2001 by 30% in comparison with 1996. We always face the same problem, and I can remember our discussing that, Mr Lange: you promised to come to an arrangement with the Council so that your amendments would be accepted in part. The question now is this: what are we to do? Are we to vote for your amendments tomorrow or the day after? Will there be a hold-up? I wonder what is really better for the environment now. I very much regret that the arrangement with the Council has not worked out. We are really faced with a decision on a matter of conscience, and this evening I will have another very good look at all this, because things have not worked out as we discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. There is one thing we need to be clear about: the Council has accepted a great many important points here, but our cars are not yet clean by a long chalk, and they never will be. Who would have believed that we would now be facing an explosion in traffic not only in the industrialised nations but also in the Third World? It has not even begun to take off in those countries yet, and it is bound to grow further – and I can only wish for the population of those countries that it will. Perhaps, Mr Lange, you could try again to reach some sort of compromise with the Council during an overnight meeting. In that way, we will all be relieved from having to decide on a matter of principle, that is whether to vote against your very good report – which I would dearly like to vote for – or else, I think it is fair to say, to vote against the environment, by procrastinating yet again.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(3.123565645051876,3.123565645051876,1000,'Consumer_protection',44,1,'1004637.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Consumer_spending',1,1,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Consumption_(economics)',5,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Consumption_(economics)',5,1,'1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Consumption_(economics)',5,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Consumption_(economics)',5,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Consumption_(economics)',5,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Contextualism',1,1,'1004371.txt','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Context_(language_use)',1,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Continent',3,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Continent',3,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Continent',3,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Continental_Europe',1,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Continuing_education',2,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Continuing_education',2,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001102.txt','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages; in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001103.txt','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100111.txt','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100112.txt','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001124.txt','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001125.txt','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100115.txt','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001160.txt','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001162.txt','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001178.txt','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001203.txt','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.'),(6.971877220034492,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,4,'1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001216.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001266.txt','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001269.txt','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim less is more. Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim \"less is more\". Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens; the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100130.txt','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1001301.txt','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(5.228907915025869,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,3,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100150.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100177.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'10019.txt','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100225.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes; the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully; it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(5.228907915025869,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,3,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100280.txt','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100286.txt','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100287.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004106.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004128.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100415.txt','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes; they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(5.228907915025869,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,3,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004183.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004245.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner you have done an excellent piece of work.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner; you have done an excellent piece of work.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004249.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004304.txt','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004339.txt','Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?','Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004345.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004356.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg; instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004387.txt','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004392.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004409.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004413.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004414.txt','On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market.','On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004439.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control; I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004479.txt','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004483.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004501.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union; both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it; we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004514.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause)  What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo  instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause)  What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all; see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo ; instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(5.228907915025869,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,3,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004596.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(3.485938610017246,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,2,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004616.txt','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(5.228907915025869,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,3,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004632.txt','Mr President, this part contradicts a resolution already adopted by this House on the liberal professions. I therefore ask that it be amended along the lines we have already agreed to, so that the oral amendment would read: ‘Considers that the Commission should not only take account of the market situation in applying the provisions of competition law to the liberal professions, but must also bear in mind the social aspects and tasks in the public interest. Calls therefore on the Commission to allow associations of the liberal professions the discretion to take measures to permit them to perform their functions correctly.’','Mr President, this part contradicts a resolution already adopted by this House on the liberal professions. I therefore ask that it be amended along the lines we have already agreed to, so that the oral amendment would read: ‘Considers that the Commission should not only take account of the market situation in applying the provisions of competition law to the liberal professions, but must also bear in mind the social aspects and tasks in the public interest. Calls therefore on the Commission to allow associations of the liberal professions the discretion to take measures to permit them to perform their functions correctly.’'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004634.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'1004637.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.'),(1.742969305008623,1.742969305008623,1000,'Contract',175,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Contradiction',1,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Controversial_discussions',1,1,'1004623.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Conventional_wisdom',1,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Convention_(norm)',7,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Convention_(norm)',7,1,'1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Convention_(norm)',7,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Convention_(norm)',7,1,'100277.txt','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy; even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms; having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried; the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Convention_(norm)',7,1,'100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Convention_(norm)',7,1,'1004271.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Convention_(norm)',7,1,'1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Convention_on_Biological_Diversity',1,1,'1001226.txt','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Convention_on_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_in_a_Transboundary_Context',2,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Convention_on_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_in_a_Transboundary_Context',2,1,'1004158.txt','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Convention_on_the_Future_of_Europe',4,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Convention_on_the_Future_of_Europe',4,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Convention_on_the_Future_of_Europe',4,1,'100421.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Convention_on_the_Future_of_Europe',4,1,'100458.txt','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child',1,2,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Conversation',2,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Conversation',2,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,2,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,2,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Cooperation',17,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1001153.txt','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,2,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Cooperative',12,1,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Copenhagen',5,1,'1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Copenhagen',5,1,'100160.txt','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Copenhagen',5,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Copenhagen',5,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Copenhagen',5,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Copenhagen_criteria',4,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Copenhagen_criteria',4,1,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Copenhagen_criteria',4,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Copenhagen_criteria',4,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Coping_(psychology)',1,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,1,'1001209.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,1,'1001214.txt','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences; the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,1,'1001248.txt','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,2,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,2,'100280.txt','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Copyright',10,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Copyright_collective',2,2,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Copyright_collective',2,1,'1004460.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Echerer most sincerely for the good teamwork and the expertise that characterises it. This report is the latest reason why I will not be the only one to be sorry that you, Mrs Echerer, will not be standing for this Parliament again. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted my opinion unanimously and because of the good teamwork is also able to vote in favour of the Echerer report. In drafting this opinion for the forthcoming debate, including that with the Commission, I and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were concerned primarily with five particular points. Firstly, monopolies must always be exceptions to competition law and there must be sound reasons for them. We know that collecting societies are organised differently in the various Member States and in many they have a monopoly over particular categories of works. There is therefore a definite need to look more closely at, or review, the territorial monopoly structures, but not to reject them outright. Secondly, it is in our opinion important to have transparency in collecting societies, such as showing administrative and licence costs separately in the accounts. Something needs to be done here. Thirdly – and this is related to the second point – there is in many countries no supervision of collecting societies. I therefore expressly welcome paragraph 49 of the Echerer Report with its call for efficient independent control mechanisms in all Member States. Fourthly, my suggestion for a public register that could be accessed electronically, containing all right-holders represented by collecting societies, would make for greater clarity and improved transparency and would certainly also simplify cross-border activity and increase competition. Fifthly and finally, where the fragmentation of rights gives rise to high transaction costs, the introduction of a one-stop shop system could be a more efficient and cheaper way for users and exploiters of rights. I ask the Commission to take the contents of the Echerer report on board in its deliberations. Once again my sincere congratulations and I ask you to vote in favour of this report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Echerer most sincerely for the good teamwork and the expertise that characterises it. This report is the latest reason why I will not be the only one to be sorry that you, Mrs Echerer, will not be standing for this Parliament again. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted my opinion unanimously and because of the good teamwork is also able to vote in favour of the Echerer report. In drafting this opinion for the forthcoming debate, including that with the Commission, I and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were concerned primarily with five particular points. Firstly, monopolies must always be exceptions to competition law and there must be sound reasons for them. We know that collecting societies are organised differently in the various Member States and in many they have a monopoly over particular categories of works. There is therefore a definite need to look more closely at, or review, the territorial monopoly structures, but not to reject them outright. Secondly, it is in our opinion important to have transparency in collecting societies, such as showing administrative and licence costs separately in the accounts. Something needs to be done here. Thirdly – and this is related to the second point – there is in many countries no supervision of collecting societies. I therefore expressly welcome paragraph 49 of the Echerer Report with its call for efficient independent control mechanisms in all Member States. Fourthly, my suggestion for a public register that could be accessed electronically, containing all right-holders represented by collecting societies, would make for greater clarity and improved transparency and would certainly also simplify cross-border activity and increase competition. Fifthly and finally, where the fragmentation of rights gives rise to high transaction costs, the introduction of a one-stop shop system could be a more efficient and cheaper way for users and exploiters of rights. I ask the Commission to take the contents of the Echerer report on board in its deliberations. Once again my sincere congratulations and I ask you to vote in favour of this report.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Copyright_Directive',2,1,'1001209.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Copyright_Directive',2,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Copyright_infringement',1,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Corporate_finance',1,1,'100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Corporate_tax',3,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Corporate_tax',3,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Corporate_tax',3,1,'1004529.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1001162.txt','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(7.726465682515428,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,2,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004478.txt','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004617.txt','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector; we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!'),(3.863232841257714,3.863232841257714,1000,'Corporation',21,1,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Correlation_and_dependence',2,1,'100150.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Correlation_and_dependence',2,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cosmetics',5,1,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cosmetics',5,1,'1004215.txt','Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner\'s heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)','Mr President, I know that our concerns are close to the Commissioner\'s heart. You, Commissioner, are a young and beautiful woman, and, whilst you have no need of cosmetics, I need them urgently. I will be seventy next year, and, whilst I am very keen to get some anti-wrinkle cream, I do not want some animal to suffer as a result. Do you really believe any woman would use any cosmetic product if she had to see an animal suffer for it? We want to look good without others having to suffer to make it possible. I really want to make an appeal to the cosmetics industry. Look how the introduction of the catalytic converter led to prophecies of ruination and claims that the end of the motor industry was nigh -– and yet, it experienced a boom. Why does the cosmetics industry not announce that it will invest money – a great deal of money – in research, in order to have the means to make women beautiful, but not at the cost of the suffering of others? I believe the cosmetics industry would enjoy a massive upturn, and European women like us would be even more beautiful than all the other women on earth. (Applause)'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cosmetics',5,2,'100434.txt','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cosmetics',5,1,'1004457.txt','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up; they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more; instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Cosmetics',5,1,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cost',2,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cost',2,1,'1001293.txt','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Cost–benefit_analysis',4,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Cost–benefit_analysis',4,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Cost–benefit_analysis',4,1,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Cost–benefit_analysis',4,1,'1004587.txt','Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport. As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?','Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper \"Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport\". As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Council_of_Europe',2,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Council_of_Europe',2,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1001231.txt','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'100153.txt','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004338.txt','Madam President, I am sorry that the Socialists’ voting list was not received by the services in time. I should like to state unequivocally that I personally, as rapporteur, have no problem in accepting this split vote, even during today’s vote, and it would be good if we could vote today because, as you know, the Council of Agricultural Ministers is meeting today and tomorrow and it would be good if the agricultural ministers knew what we had decided here. Unfortunately, if we vote tomorrow, it will be too late.','Madam President, I am sorry that the Socialists’ voting list was not received by the services in time. I should like to state unequivocally that I personally, as rapporteur, have no problem in accepting this split vote, even during today’s vote, and it would be good if we could vote today because, as you know, the Council of Agricultural Ministers is meeting today and tomorrow and it would be good if the agricultural ministers knew what we had decided here. Unfortunately, if we vote tomorrow, it will be too late.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004386.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004401.txt','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004511.txt','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?'),(3.963316299808697,3.963316299808697,1000,'Council_of_the_European_Union',19,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Counter-terrorism',5,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Counter-terrorism',5,1,'1004192.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it; that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague; and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism; that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol; and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations; and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Counter-terrorism',5,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Counter-terrorism',5,1,'1004271.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Counter-terrorism',5,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Counterattack',1,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Counterfeit',3,1,'1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Counterfeit',3,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Counterfeit',3,2,'1004559.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Country_neutrality_(international_relations)',5,1,'1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Country_neutrality_(international_relations)',5,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Country_neutrality_(international_relations)',5,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Country_neutrality_(international_relations)',5,1,'1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Country_neutrality_(international_relations)',5,1,'1004511.txt','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Country_of_origin_principle',2,1,'1004103.txt','Mr President , I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?','Mr President , I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Country_of_origin_principle',2,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Courage',1,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Course_(education)',1,1,'1004156.txt','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Court',10,1,'1004584.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area; we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Court_order',1,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Craft',2,1,'1004242.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions; all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Craft',2,1,'1004554.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, recreational craft can look back on a very important development. They were originally powered by two-stroke engines that really did pollute the environment and also produced a great deal of noise. What is noticeable about modern boats is that research and development have already achieved a great deal, and development can go ahead. I believe that we have found a joint solution here, one that also provides an incentive for the further development of this new technology, and I would like to thank Mr Callanan most warmly for seizing the initiative. What matters to us at the end of the day is that mobility should be ensured in the future, not only for the purposes of carrying on a business or profession, where it can of course very often be vital, but also in the sphere of sporting activity, where, so I believe, quite a bit has been achieved recently. What matters at the end of the day is that exhaust gases and noise should be kept to a minimum so that these are appropriate to the surroundings in question. I therefore believe that we have now found a solution with which we can all be happy. Let me again express my heartfelt gratitude and my hope that this may bring us an agreed outcome in Parliament too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, recreational craft can look back on a very important development. They were originally powered by two-stroke engines that really did pollute the environment and also produced a great deal of noise. What is noticeable about modern boats is that research and development have already achieved a great deal, and development can go ahead. I believe that we have found a joint solution here, one that also provides an incentive for the further development of this new technology, and I would like to thank Mr Callanan most warmly for seizing the initiative. What matters to us at the end of the day is that mobility should be ensured in the future, not only for the purposes of carrying on a business or profession, where it can of course very often be vital, but also in the sphere of sporting activity, where, so I believe, quite a bit has been achieved recently. What matters at the end of the day is that exhaust gases and noise should be kept to a minimum so that these are appropriate to the surroundings in question. I therefore believe that we have now found a solution with which we can all be happy. Let me again express my heartfelt gratitude and my hope that this may bring us an agreed outcome in Parliament too.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Creation_myth',2,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Creation_myth',2,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Creativity',7,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Creativity',7,1,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Creativity',7,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Creativity',7,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Creativity',7,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Creativity',7,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Creativity',7,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Credibility',3,1,'1001184.txt','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Credibility',3,1,'1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Credibility',3,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Creditor',1,1,'1004431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Creditors_rights',1,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Credit_(finance)',4,1,'1001272.txt','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Credit_(finance)',4,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Credit_(finance)',4,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Credit_(finance)',4,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Credit_crunch',1,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Credit_limit',1,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Credit_rating',3,1,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Credit_rating',3,1,'1004300.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Credit_rating',3,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Credit_rating_agency',2,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Credit_rating_agency',2,1,'1004568.txt','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Credit_risk',2,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Credit_risk',2,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Creep_(Radiohead_song)',1,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'10010.txt','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice; efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime; and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1001117.txt','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1001144.txt','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1001166.txt','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1001243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,2,'1001244.txt','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.'),(10.144184263007928,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,3,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100161.txt','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100198.txt','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report; firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators; secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level; and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,2,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,2,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004559.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,2,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(6.762789508671951,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,2,'1004584.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area; we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004602.txt','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.'),(3.3813947543359757,3.3813947543359757,1000,'Crime',34,1,'1004634.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Crimes_against_humanity',1,1,'100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Crime_in_Bucharest',1,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Crime_in_Russia',1,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Criminal_code',1,1,'100178.txt','Obviously it makes sense and we need to combat money laundering. However, there are differing interpretations as to how this can be achieved. If we set minimum penalties in this framework resolution, we shall come up against elementary rule of law problems. If we set minimum penalties, we shall be contradicting cleverly worked-out national criminal codes. We need to approximate, not unify our criminal codes. Under the rule of law and democracy, criminal codes represent very core of national sovereignty and the Member States should therefore be left to set them.','Obviously it makes sense and we need to combat money laundering. However, there are differing interpretations as to how this can be achieved. If we set minimum penalties in this framework resolution, we shall come up against elementary rule of law problems. If we set minimum penalties, we shall be contradicting cleverly worked-out national criminal codes. We need to approximate, not unify our criminal codes. Under the rule of law and democracy, criminal codes represent very core of national sovereignty and the Member States should therefore be left to set them.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Criminal_justice',3,2,'100175.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Criminal_justice',3,2,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Criminal_justice',3,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1001102.txt','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages; in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'100158.txt','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Criminal_law',11,1,'1004515.txt','Madam President, I am amazed that an honourable Member should describe euthanasia as a matter for national criminal jurisdiction covered by subsidiarity. We are, of course, all very proud and gratified that the death penalty does not exist in a single Member State of the European Union, because the sanctity of human life is something that should unite us all. (Applause)','Madam President, I am amazed that an honourable Member should describe euthanasia as a matter for national criminal jurisdiction covered by subsidiarity. We are, of course, all very proud and gratified that the death penalty does not exist in a single Member State of the European Union, because the sanctity of human life is something that should unite us all. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Criminal_procedure',1,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Crisis_management',5,1,'1001233.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Crisis_management',5,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Crisis_management',5,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Crisis_management',5,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Crisis_management',5,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Crispy_Ambulance',1,1,'100264.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur; well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again; perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'100112.txt','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1001184.txt','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1001256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'100431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Critical_theory',16,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Critical_thinking',1,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Criticism',1,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Croatia',4,1,'1004135.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia\'s application for membership represents a further step towards the stabilisation of this region. Just in the last few minutes we have received bad news from Serbia. A state of emergency was declared there a few minutes ago following the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. I would be interested to know if you intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, given that this development really does give us great cause for concern.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Croatia\'s application for membership represents a further step towards the stabilisation of this region. Just in the last few minutes we have received bad news from Serbia. A state of emergency was declared there a few minutes ago following the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. I would be interested to know if you intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, given that this development really does give us great cause for concern.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Croatia',4,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Croatia',4,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Croatia',4,1,'100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Croatian_language',1,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Crop',1,2,'1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Crop_rotation',1,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cruelty_to_animals',1,1,'1004258.txt','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Crusades',1,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ctesiphon',1,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cucumber',1,1,'1004405.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cul-de-sac',1,1,'1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cultural_area',2,1,'1004374.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping; politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point; it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cultural_area',2,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cultural_assimilation',2,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Cultural_assimilation',2,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cultural_capital',1,1,'100414.txt','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss; it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cultural_heritage',1,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cultural_landscape',1,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cultural_policies_of_the_European_Union',1,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Cultural_policy',6,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Cultural_policy',6,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Cultural_policy',6,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Cultural_policy',6,1,'100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Cultural_policy',6,1,'100274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Cultural_policy',6,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100118.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.'),(9.73258089855447,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,3,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1001219.txt','Mr President, let me say first of all that I appreciate the way we can talk to each other here in a fairly intimate atmosphere. There is no doubt that it is easier to ask important questions than to find the answers to them. The President\'s statement notwithstanding, all of us can only wish these answers to be found, but I want to make allowances all the same for the fact that Laeken saw a very important task performed, that of getting the Convention on track with a president who is not only distinguished but whose appointment also augurs well for the future. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was our most recent opportunity to learn that the success of such a process largely depends on who presides over it, so let me say that the youthful attire of the President-in-Office led me to fear that the Convention would be given a rather ‘young’ and ‘dynamic’ chair. Unlike Mrs Frassoni and Mr Bonde, I was therefore rather pleased to learn that we were still going to give preference to the opinions of those older and wiser – something which marks out the higher cultures. The inauguration of the Convention was, though, the only outstanding achievement. Speaking from an Austrian point of view, I find Point 59 regrettable on the grounds that it has turned out to be very narrow and does not do justice to the need for Europe-wide safety standards.','Mr President, let me say first of all that I appreciate the way we can talk to each other here in a fairly intimate atmosphere. There is no doubt that it is easier to ask important questions than to find the answers to them. The President\'s statement notwithstanding, all of us can only wish these answers to be found, but I want to make allowances all the same for the fact that Laeken saw a very important task performed, that of getting the Convention on track with a president who is not only distinguished but whose appointment also augurs well for the future. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was our most recent opportunity to learn that the success of such a process largely depends on who presides over it, so let me say that the youthful attire of the President-in-Office led me to fear that the Convention would be given a rather ‘young’ and ‘dynamic’ chair. Unlike Mrs Frassoni and Mr Bonde, I was therefore rather pleased to learn that we were still going to give preference to the opinions of those older and wiser – something which marks out the higher cultures. The inauguration of the Convention was, though, the only outstanding achievement. Speaking from an Austrian point of view, I find Point 59 regrettable on the grounds that it has turned out to be very narrow and does not do justice to the need for Europe-wide safety standards.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(6.488387265702981,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,2,'10022.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(6.488387265702981,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,2,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(6.488387265702981,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,2,'100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.'),(6.488387265702981,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,2,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100260.txt','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100278.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or Lingua. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or \"Lingua\". Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.'),(9.73258089855447,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,3,'100280.txt','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(6.488387265702981,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,2,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100286.txt','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'100288.txt','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.'),(6.488387265702981,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,2,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(6.488387265702981,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,2,'1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004258.txt','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004374.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have discussed this issue on many occasions in the past and views have been exchanged. Account has even been taken of recent developments. I should therefore like to stress just a few points once again. First, politics means shaping; politics means shaping the habitat and coexistence of people. Secondly, the book trade is more to us than simply a sales network for books. It creates identities and books create identities. Thirdly, the question at issue for me is not merely cross-border trade between Austria and Germany, although that is the starting point; it is the question of the role of language areas and the role of cultural areas. For us the relevant market is the market to which the book relates and it cannot be reduced to national borders. For us it is, in this respect, the language and cultural area, hence the importance of cross-border fixed book prices. It is obvious to us Austrians that a national regulation alone is not enough and that we also need an import clause and an export clause and to use the French model as a basis, because the language area and the cultural area transcend our national borders. Commissioner, you said that you had never seen the need for conflict between culture and the market. I share this view, provided that we state clearly what we mean by market and what we mean by the purpose of competition policy. You said at your hearing that you were striving for competition policy and the market to further develop into a social market economy. A social and ecological market economy includes protection for cultural assets and signals market definition. This is precisely our debate, which is why I appeal to you to define clearly the relevant market in this context as a language and cultural area, to clarify import clauses together with the possibility for national regulation and to apply the French law to your judgement and considerations. (Applause)'),(6.488387265702981,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,2,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Culture',39,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Culture_minister',1,1,'100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Culture_of_Europe',1,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004187.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,2,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Currency',12,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Currency_competition',1,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Currency_union',1,2,'100456.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid; it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Curriculum',2,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Curriculum',2,1,'1004444.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Curvature',2,1,'1004405.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Curvature',2,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Customer',3,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Customer',3,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Customer',3,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Customs',3,1,'100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Customs',3,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Customs',3,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Custom_(law)',2,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Custom_(law)',2,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cycle_of_poverty',1,2,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Cyclone_Lothar_and_Martin',1,1,'1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cynicism_(philosophy)',3,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cynicism_(philosophy)',3,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Cynicism_(philosophy)',3,1,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Cyprus',4,1,'100144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Cyprus',4,1,'100175.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Cyprus',4,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Cyprus',4,1,'1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Czechs',2,1,'1001117.txt','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Czechs',2,1,'1001187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Czech_language',1,1,'1004158.txt','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1001108.txt','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1001126.txt','I rejected the report on the ‘Czech Republic’s application for membership of the European Union and the stage of negotiations reached’ because Parliament rejected the amendment submitted by the honourable member Matti Wuori. A disproportionately large number of breakdowns occurred during the preparations for putting the nuclear reactor Temelin into operation. In addition, environmental sustainability tests are not being carried out to an adequate extent, and the central parts of the reactor have not undergone crucial monitoring by international experts.','I rejected the report on the ‘Czech Republic’s application for membership of the European Union and the stage of negotiations reached’ because Parliament rejected the amendment submitted by the honourable member Matti Wuori. A disproportionately large number of breakdowns occurred during the preparations for putting the nuclear reactor Temelin into operation. In addition, environmental sustainability tests are not being carried out to an adequate extent, and the central parts of the reactor have not undergone crucial monitoring by international experts.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1001138.txt','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1001187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.'),(7.824046010856292,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,2,'1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1001255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'100144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'100218.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1004114.txt','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1004432.txt','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended; to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous; it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes; we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need; they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1004485.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1004486.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(3.912023005428146,3.912023005428146,1000,'Czech_Republic',20,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dag_Hammarskjöld',1,1,'1004501.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union; both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it; we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Damages',5,1,'1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Damages',5,2,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Damages',5,2,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Damages',5,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Damages',5,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dangerous_(Michael_Jackson_album)',1,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dangerous_goods',1,1,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Danube',2,1,'1004127.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and the entire committee for their work. The harmonisation and liberalisation of rail transport in the EU is an important step towards the aims of transferring more transport from road to rail and creating an integrated intermodal transport system. In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, it is essential that the trans-European network projects affecting the eastern part of Austria should actually be implemented on schedule. This infrastructure is needed to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the population of those areas and to ensure that they remain favourably disposed to enlargement. These are normal projects, relating to the rail and road networks and the Danube improvement scheme. One word on a topical issue: we all know that every Member State has its own particular set of circumstances and its own problems. May I therefore appeal again today to all those involved in the ecopoints negotiations to work out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and the entire committee for their work. The harmonisation and liberalisation of rail transport in the EU is an important step towards the aims of transferring more transport from road to rail and creating an integrated intermodal transport system. In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, it is essential that the trans-European network projects affecting the eastern part of Austria should actually be implemented on schedule. This infrastructure is needed to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the population of those areas and to ensure that they remain favourably disposed to enlargement. These are normal projects, relating to the rail and road networks and the Danube improvement scheme. One word on a topical issue: we all know that every Member State has its own particular set of circumstances and its own problems. May I therefore appeal again today to all those involved in the ecopoints negotiations to work out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Danube',2,1,'1004534.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your initiative. The citizens want enlargement to build visible bridges. The Slovak government seeks a bridge in the form of the joining of Vienna and Bratislava airports into a mega-airport with a \'Transrapid\' rail line to improve transport links. This could well be the first stage of the Paris-Vienna route you have mentioned. I believe it would be a very important initiative to take it onward as far as Budapest. We also have, however, the shipping junction on the Danube, and in the long run this would become a triple junction. Do you think this programme could also facilitate the financing of junctions of this sort?','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your initiative. The citizens want enlargement to build visible bridges. The Slovak government seeks a bridge in the form of the joining of Vienna and Bratislava airports into a mega-airport with a \'Transrapid\' rail line to improve transport links. This could well be the first stage of the Paris-Vienna route you have mentioned. I believe it would be a very important initiative to take it onward as far as Budapest. We also have, however, the shipping junction on the Danube, and in the long run this would become a triple junction. Do you think this programme could also facilitate the financing of junctions of this sort?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Darkest_Hour_(band)',1,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Data',3,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Data',3,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Data',3,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Database',1,1,'1004177.txt','Mr President, esteemed gentlemen from Portugal, especially the Council representatives, you face great expectations on our part. I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment. I refer to Eurodac. You will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system, as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications, in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and, above all, in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure. We voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument, together with an implementation committee, which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be. We were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality. Even in Tampere, we were of the opinion that Eurodac was becoming a reality. However, the Council then took another direction at the very next summit in December and took a huge step backwards by deciding what we had absolutely rejected, i.e. that the Council should continue to be responsible for implementation, that the regulatory committee would be attached to the Council and that, where possible, Gibraltar would still be used to exert pressure. This is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see. My urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures. If you tell us today how you wish to proceed, you will be doing us a great service. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed gentlemen from Portugal, especially the Council representatives, you face great expectations on our part. I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment. I refer to Eurodac. You will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system, as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications, in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and, above all, in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure. We voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument, together with an implementation committee, which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be. We were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality. Even in Tampere, we were of the opinion that Eurodac was becoming a reality. However, the Council then took another direction at the very next summit in December and took a huge step backwards by deciding what we had absolutely rejected, i.e. that the Council should continue to be responsible for implementation, that the regulatory committee would be attached to the Council and that, where possible, Gibraltar would still be used to exert pressure. This is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see. My urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures. If you tell us today how you wish to proceed, you will be doing us a great service. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Data_Protection_Directive',1,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'David_Hume',1,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'David_Martin_(Scottish_politician)',1,1,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Day-In_Day-Out',1,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Days_Go_By_(The_Offspring_album)',1,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dear_Reader',1,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'100145.txt','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(8.270333113484712,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,2,'1004304.txt','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Death',16,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Death_squad',1,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Debate',3,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Debate',3,1,'10019.txt','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Debate',3,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1001216.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'100456.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid; it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'Debt',18,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Debt_ratio',1,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Decentralised_system',1,1,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Decentralization',3,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Decentralization',3,1,'1004179.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Decentralization',3,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Deception',4,1,'1001130.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Deception',4,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Deception',4,1,'100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Deception',4,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'1001113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001148.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100123.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001234.txt','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'10013.txt','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100167.txt','Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo\'s model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe\'s future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions. I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.','Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo\'s model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe\'s future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions. I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'10021.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100275.txt','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100287.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004187.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004219.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?'),(10.153229706028462,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,4,'1004221.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004230.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004306.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004439.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control; I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004474.txt','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004480.txt','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.','Mr President, I regret the fact that this House, when considering the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels, did not advocate making the addition of biodiesel mandatory. As I see it, the many benefits associated with their use mean that biofuels have to be promoted much more extensively as a competitive product. Let me remind you of our dependence on fossil fuels and of the fact that they are imported from third countries. I would also like to reiterate that we would thus be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol all the more speedily, and would remind you of the impetus this would give to rural areas and to the multifunctional role of agriculture. I spoke in favour of the addition of a mandatory quantity because, on this point too, I believe that a greater market share can be achieved more quickly. Despite this, though, I am very grateful, as I believe that these new directives and the new decisions taken by Parliament are a good thing in terms of an innovative future for agriculture and rural areas, and hence that what we have done today is a good start.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'1004501.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union; both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it; we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'100454.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market probably got its best birthday present today in the form of the Commissioner\'s words that, despite its achievements, his patience is wearing thin. I thank you for your impatience, hoping that, for the good of the internal market, all who operate in it and especially all who impede its progress will be made increasingly aware of how impatient you are. Europe must become a continent, and the EU must become a political union. We therefore give an unreserved ‘yes’ to an internal market that is developing fully and is able to give full expression to its dynamism for the good of Europe. We have only a year left to implement the internal market strategy for 1999/2004, a year in which we will need greater seriousness of purpose in place of half-heartedness, more speed in place of hesitancy and greater responsibility for the whole rather than parochialism. There is no mistaking the internal market\'s significance, which became apparent in the aftermath of 11 September. The stronger our internal market, the stronger is Europe\'s position in the world, and the more independent we are. This, then, makes me very glad that we are now discussing enlargement, as enlargement will extend our internal market and thereby strengthen Europe. The euro has made the internal market into a domestic market for many countries and thus strengthened it overall, so I also want to expressly welcome the internal market safeguard clause in the accession treaties. Directives need to be transposed with greater speed. We need the decision-making process to be speeded up, rather than have it take twenty-eight months as it did with company pension schemes. We need a debate to get the regulation of competences revised in the light of the internal market strategy and of the Lisbon strategy and made the basis of the work in the Convention. So what I expect of you – even bearing your impatience in mind – is that you avail yourself more of your right of initiative and name names rather than keeping quiet about those who are blocking progress.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market probably got its best birthday present today in the form of the Commissioner\'s words that, despite its achievements, his patience is wearing thin. I thank you for your impatience, hoping that, for the good of the internal market, all who operate in it and especially all who impede its progress will be made increasingly aware of how impatient you are. Europe must become a continent, and the EU must become a political union. We therefore give an unreserved ‘yes’ to an internal market that is developing fully and is able to give full expression to its dynamism for the good of Europe. We have only a year left to implement the internal market strategy for 1999/2004, a year in which we will need greater seriousness of purpose in place of half-heartedness, more speed in place of hesitancy and greater responsibility for the whole rather than parochialism. There is no mistaking the internal market\'s significance, which became apparent in the aftermath of 11 September. The stronger our internal market, the stronger is Europe\'s position in the world, and the more independent we are. This, then, makes me very glad that we are now discussing enlargement, as enlargement will extend our internal market and thereby strengthen Europe. The euro has made the internal market into a domestic market for many countries and thus strengthened it overall, so I also want to expressly welcome the internal market safeguard clause in the accession treaties. Directives need to be transposed with greater speed. We need the decision-making process to be speeded up, rather than have it take twenty-eight months as it did with company pension schemes. We need a debate to get the regulation of competences revised in the light of the internal market strategy and of the Lisbon strategy and made the basis of the work in the Convention. So what I expect of you – even bearing your impatience in mind – is that you avail yourself more of your right of initiative and name names rather than keeping quiet about those who are blocking progress.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004568.txt','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004617.txt','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector; we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(5.076614853014231,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,2,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(2.5383074265071155,2.5383074265071155,1000,'Decision-making',79,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Declaration_of_war',1,1,'1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Decoction',1,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Decomposition',1,1,'1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Deductive_reasoning',1,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Deed',3,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Deed',3,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Deed',3,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Defamation',5,1,'1001129.txt','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Defamation',5,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Defamation',5,1,'100139.txt','Mr President, Mr Schulz called me a racist. Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to respond. He described himself as a representative of a country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism. I would never use such an expression, even though many members of my family were murdered during the Holocaust. I would ask Mr Schulz, as a representative of the country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism – his own words – to cite just one, just one, racist comment that I have made in the course of my career in politics. If he is unable to come up with one, then would he please apologise, not for criticising, but for vilifying my character.','Mr President, Mr Schulz called me a racist. Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to respond. He described himself as a representative of a country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism. I would never use such an expression, even though many members of my family were murdered during the Holocaust. I would ask Mr Schulz, as a representative of the country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism – his own words – to cite just one, just one, racist comment that I have made in the course of my career in politics. If he is unable to come up with one, then would he please apologise, not for criticising, but for vilifying my character.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Defamation',5,1,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Defamation',5,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Default_judgment',1,1,'1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Defense_(legal)',1,1,'1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Deferred_tax',1,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Deficit_spending',1,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Definition',1,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Definitions_of_terrorism',1,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004187.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Deflation',10,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Déjà_Vu_(Beyoncé_song)',1,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demand',6,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demand',6,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demand',6,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demand',6,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demand',6,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demand',6,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'10010.txt','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice; efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime; and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.'),(11.822302483400666,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,5,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001148.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001150.txt','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001152.txt','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001161.txt','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.'),(11.822302483400666,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,5,'1001174.txt','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1001184.txt','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1001200.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001204.txt','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001210.txt','Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday\'s majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply. This means, in other words, that today\'s debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee.','Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday\'s majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply. This means, in other words, that today\'s debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1001230.txt','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001250.txt','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001286.txt','Madam President, Europe has a special historical responsibility for the peace process in the Middle East. This means proceeding with great sensitivity and not taking a schoolmasterly line or apportioning blame to one side alone. The fact that the Foreign Minister himself responded to the last peace negotiations by stepping down, serves as a reminder to us that above all in Israel, which is the stable democracy in the region, every step taken by the politicians must have the backing of the majority of the Israeli people. Nevertheless, we would do well not to forget that for all the fine words uttered, the crucial negotiations for peace in the Middle East take place in the USA and not in Europe. Perhaps those EU politicians whose brief it is, have so far been unable to find the right way to act as genuinely neutral and productive mediators in this conflict.','Madam President, Europe has a special historical responsibility for the peace process in the Middle East. This means proceeding with great sensitivity and not taking a schoolmasterly line or apportioning blame to one side alone. The fact that the Foreign Minister himself responded to the last peace negotiations by stepping down, serves as a reminder to us that above all in Israel, which is the stable democracy in the region, every step taken by the politicians must have the backing of the majority of the Israeli people. Nevertheless, we would do well not to forget that for all the fine words uttered, the crucial negotiations for peace in the Middle East take place in the USA and not in Europe. Perhaps those EU politicians whose brief it is, have so far been unable to find the right way to act as genuinely neutral and productive mediators in this conflict.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'10013.txt','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100162.txt','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'100175.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100178.txt','Obviously it makes sense and we need to combat money laundering. However, there are differing interpretations as to how this can be achieved. If we set minimum penalties in this framework resolution, we shall come up against elementary rule of law problems. If we set minimum penalties, we shall be contradicting cleverly worked-out national criminal codes. We need to approximate, not unify our criminal codes. Under the rule of law and democracy, criminal codes represent very core of national sovereignty and the Member States should therefore be left to set them.','Obviously it makes sense and we need to combat money laundering. However, there are differing interpretations as to how this can be achieved. If we set minimum penalties in this framework resolution, we shall come up against elementary rule of law problems. If we set minimum penalties, we shall be contradicting cleverly worked-out national criminal codes. We need to approximate, not unify our criminal codes. Under the rule of law and democracy, criminal codes represent very core of national sovereignty and the Member States should therefore be left to set them.'),(9.457841986720533,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,4,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'10029.txt','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?'),(7.0933814900404,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,3,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(7.0933814900404,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,3,'1004183.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004250.txt','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous; quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.'),(7.0933814900404,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,3,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1004401.txt','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004408.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'100447.txt','Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)','Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004547.txt','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(4.7289209933602665,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,2,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(2.3644604966801333,2.3644604966801333,1000,'Democracy',94,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Democratic_Choice_(Israel)',1,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Democratic_deficit',5,1,'1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Democratic_deficit',5,1,'1001282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties; not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Democratic_deficit',5,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Democratic_deficit',5,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Democratic_deficit',5,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Democratic_Party_(United_States)',2,1,'1001210.txt','Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday\'s majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply. This means, in other words, that today\'s debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee.','Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday\'s majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply. This means, in other words, that today\'s debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Democratic_Party_(United_States)',2,1,'1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo',1,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Democratic_structuring',1,1,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Demographics_of_Afghanistan',1,1,'1001243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Demographics_of_Austria',1,1,'1004590.txt','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Demography',7,1,'1001296.txt','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Demography',7,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Demography',7,1,'1004190.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)'),(9.923690259851648,4.961845129925824,1000,'Demography',7,2,'1004247.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Demography',7,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(4.961845129925824,4.961845129925824,1000,'Demography',7,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(9.923690259851648,4.961845129925824,1000,'Demography',7,2,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demonstration_(protest)',6,1,'1001157.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demonstration_(protest)',6,1,'100177.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demonstration_(protest)',6,1,'10023.txt','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty. Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty\". Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demonstration_(protest)',6,1,'1004393.txt','Madam President, I just wanted to say to Mr Swoboda that he sometimes finds it difficult to decide whether he is speaking here as the Vice-Chairman of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, as a Viennese politician, or as a former Viennese politician. I sometimes get the impression that his statements have more to do with the fact that there are local elections in Vienna on 25 March.','Madam President, I just wanted to say to Mr Swoboda that he sometimes finds it difficult to decide whether he is speaking here as the Vice-Chairman of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, as a Viennese politician, or as a former Viennese politician. I sometimes get the impression that his statements have more to do with the fact that there are local elections in Vienna on 25 March.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demonstration_(protest)',6,1,'1004401.txt','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Demonstration_(protest)',6,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Denial',1,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'100113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'100180.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'1004114.txt','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'1004323.txt','Mr President, what interests me most is how the euro-debate will go on from here, after the referendum in Denmark, and what changes the Commission intends to make to the information strategy?','Mr President, what interests me most is how the euro-debate will go on from here, after the referendum in Denmark, and what changes the Commission intends to make to the information strategy?'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Denmark',11,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Denomination_(currency)',1,1,'1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Den_Burg',1,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Department_for_Transport',1,1,'1004201.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5% in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5%; in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Deportation',4,1,'100248.txt','Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we Greens, but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us Greens on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.','Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we Greens, but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us Greens on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Deportation',4,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Deportation',4,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Deportation',4,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Deposit_account',1,2,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Depreciation',1,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Depression_(mood)',2,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Depression_(mood)',2,1,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Deregulation',5,1,'1001100.txt','The proposals for a second railway package set in motion important initiatives towards strengthening Europe\'s railway system. Opening rail freight services within Member States, and accelerating the process of opening up the international ones, represent a significant step towards deregulating the railway sector. The objectives set by the White Paper for European transport policy up to 2010, as well as the constantly increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads, mean that absolute priority must be accorded to transferring goods traffic from road to rail. Diverting the flow of European freight traffic can succeed in the long term only if railways are high-performing and competitive. The planned harmonisation of the European railway network is therefore to be welcomed, provided that a maximum of safety in rail travel can be guaranteed.','The proposals for a second railway package set in motion important initiatives towards strengthening Europe\'s railway system. Opening rail freight services within Member States, and accelerating the process of opening up the international ones, represent a significant step towards deregulating the railway sector. The objectives set by the White Paper for European transport policy up to 2010, as well as the constantly increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads, mean that absolute priority must be accorded to transferring goods traffic from road to rail. Diverting the flow of European freight traffic can succeed in the long term only if railways are high-performing and competitive. The planned harmonisation of the European railway network is therefore to be welcomed, provided that a maximum of safety in rail travel can be guaranteed.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Deregulation',5,1,'100286.txt','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Deregulation',5,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Deregulation',5,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Deregulation',5,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Derogation',3,1,'1004283.txt','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Derogation',3,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Derogation',3,1,'1004637.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Der_Standard',1,1,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Desert_Flower',1,1,'1004413.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Desiderius_Erasmus',1,1,'100264.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur; well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again; perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Desires_for_the_Future',1,1,'1001261.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet; this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Desire_the_Right',1,1,'100252.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’ they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’; they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness; we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Despotism',1,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Détente',2,1,'1001249.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Détente',2,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Determinative',1,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Determinism',1,1,'100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Deus_ex_machina',1,1,'1001266.txt','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Developmental_biology',1,1,'1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Development_aid',6,1,'100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Development_aid',6,1,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Development_aid',6,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Development_aid',6,1,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Development_aid',6,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Development_aid',6,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'100130.txt','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'100426.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'De_facto',12,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'De_minimis',2,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'De_minimis',2,1,'1004596.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'De_rerum_natura',1,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Dialogue',3,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Dialogue',3,1,'1004121.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me first congratulate you on your success in the Doha negotiations. I believe that the European delegation, to which I belonged, did very well to bring the negotiations to their conclusion. We stand a good chance of completing this round successfully. Our hosts in Doha also looked after us extremely well, something which I think was a fundamental requirement. What Mr Hans-Peter Martin is referring to, though, is the dialogue with the NGOs, a point I would like to probe further with reference to the Parliamentary Assembly. I do not believe it is feasible for this discussion to be carried on every couple of years and at the same location. Do you not think too that it would make more sense for parliamentarians from the various countries to be able to get together over a period of time and jointly to work through this subject, which is so crucial for the future, in a professional and detailed way?','Mr President, Commissioner, let me first congratulate you on your success in the Doha negotiations. I believe that the European delegation, to which I belonged, did very well to bring the negotiations to their conclusion. We stand a good chance of completing this round successfully. Our hosts in Doha also looked after us extremely well, something which I think was a fundamental requirement. What Mr Hans-Peter Martin is referring to, though, is the dialogue with the NGOs, a point I would like to probe further with reference to the Parliamentary Assembly. I do not believe it is feasible for this discussion to be carried on every couple of years and at the same location. Do you not think too that it would make more sense for parliamentarians from the various countries to be able to get together over a period of time and jointly to work through this subject, which is so crucial for the future, in a professional and detailed way?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Dialogue',3,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001101.txt','Mr President, the very title of this item on our agenda indicates the importance of Article 133 in the debate on the extension of qualified majority voting. While its extension to trade in services is an understandable aim, it has little to do with the main issue of institutional reform, which needs to be resolved as a matter of priority the demand contained in point 7 of the joint resolution regarding the extension of external negotiating competence in the field of trade to cover investment has even less to do with this main issue. In view of the rather dim prospects of success, I do not think it would be a wise move to burden the Intergovernmental Conference with another complex and controversial topic. Given the current state of negotiations, it is doubtful whether even an extension of the conference to the Sunday, along with the customary extra hour that is gained when the clocks go back, would be sufficient to ensure that this question, along with all the others, will be properly resolved.','Mr President, the very title of this item on our agenda indicates the importance of Article 133 in the debate on the extension of qualified majority voting. While its extension to trade in services is an understandable aim, it has little to do with the main issue of institutional reform, which needs to be resolved as a matter of priority; the demand contained in point 7 of the joint resolution regarding the extension of external negotiating competence in the field of trade to cover investment has even less to do with this main issue. In view of the rather dim prospects of success, I do not think it would be a wise move to burden the Intergovernmental Conference with another complex and controversial topic. Given the current state of negotiations, it is doubtful whether even an extension of the conference to the Sunday, along with the customary extra hour that is gained when the clocks go back, would be sufficient to ensure that this question, along with all the others, will be properly resolved.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100118.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001182.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100267.txt','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100272.txt','Mr President, I too would like to say, in relation to Amendment No 53, that the English version is the valid text. ‘Parasitic copies’ is therefore the correct wording.','Mr President, I too would like to say, in relation to Amendment No 53, that the English version is the valid text. ‘Parasitic copies’ is therefore the correct wording.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004103.txt','Mr President , I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?','Mr President , I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004132.txt','Mr President, I would like to put another question to the Commission. Are there programmes designed to support women who do not want to have an abortion?','Mr President, I would like to put another question to the Commission. Are there programmes designed to support women who do not want to have an abortion?'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004148.txt','Mr President, I wanted to thank the Commission and the Council for making it possible for this document to be adopted today, within four months of its submission, and at first reading. I would also like to extend warm greetings to the delegations from the Austrian National Council and Federal Council, who are in the visitors\' gallery.','Mr President, I wanted to thank the Commission and the Council for making it possible for this document to be adopted today, within four months of its submission, and at first reading. I would also like to extend warm greetings to the delegations from the Austrian National Council and Federal Council, who are in the visitors\' gallery.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004151.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004204.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to tell you that a lady who works with me has been attacked and beaten up at the railway station, and that the security situation has not improved.','Mr President, I just wanted to tell you that a lady who works with me has been attacked and beaten up at the railway station, and that the security situation has not improved.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004205.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004241.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would ask Mrs Izquierdo Rojo to adhere to the formalities of this House. We have to understand that the President of the Council’s function is, of course, simply to perform the Council’s duties, and that he does not bear responsibility for the individual Member States. It is for that reason that I want to ask whether it is actually known whether it was possible to liberate from Iraqi prisons political detainees who would otherwise have faced the death penalty?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would ask Mrs Izquierdo Rojo to adhere to the formalities of this House. We have to understand that the President of the Council’s function is, of course, simply to perform the Council’s duties, and that he does not bear responsibility for the individual Member States. It is for that reason that I want to ask whether it is actually known whether it was possible to liberate from Iraqi prisons political detainees who would otherwise have faced the death penalty?'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004293.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004310.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004333.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004371.txt','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004376.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know to which technical norms and standards the Commission actually refers when deciding which blocks are dangerous and have to be closed down.','Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know to which technical norms and standards the Commission actually refers when deciding which blocks are dangerous and have to be closed down.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004381.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004390.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you specifically for mentioning the fact that you are also working on nuclear safety in the Ukraine. I would be interested to know whether it is actually intended to use the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency as a basis for guaranteeing safety there.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you specifically for mentioning the fact that you are also working on nuclear safety in the Ukraine. I would be interested to know whether it is actually intended to use the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency as a basis for guaranteeing safety there.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004427.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to say that Mr Hans-Peter Martin has announced the withdrawal of the report on lobbying in industry because of his own personal interest. This is not something that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes it has been done contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and of the coordinator. I just wanted to have it recorded in the minutes of the House that he personally withdrew this report contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and contrary to the statement that he made.','Mr President, I just wanted to say that Mr Hans-Peter Martin has announced the withdrawal of the report on lobbying in industry because of his own personal interest. This is not something that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes; it has been done contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and of the coordinator. I just wanted to have it recorded in the minutes of the House that he personally withdrew this report contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and contrary to the statement that he made.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004570.txt','Mr President, may I make a request? I would like an investigation into whether, during the vote on the van Hulten report, it was noted by Mr Ferber and recorded in the Minutes, that a Member was not present, which that Member subsequently confirmed. Is he entitled to call for a subsequent correction of the vote, which did not take place in the Chamber, which the Minutes indicate that he did?','Mr President, may I make a request? I would like an investigation into whether, during the vote on the van Hulten report, it was noted by Mr Ferber and recorded in the Minutes, that a Member was not present, which that Member subsequently confirmed. Is he entitled to call for a subsequent correction of the vote, which did not take place in the Chamber, which the Minutes indicate that he did?'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004602.txt','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.'),(3.2441936328514904,3.2441936328514904,1000,'Dickie_Goodman',39,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Dictator',2,1,'1001204.txt','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Dictator',2,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dictatorship',4,1,'1001204.txt','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dictatorship',4,1,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dictatorship',4,1,'1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dictatorship',4,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Diesel_fuel',2,1,'1004242.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions; all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Diesel_fuel',2,1,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dietary_supplement',1,1,'1004484.txt','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)','Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'DigitalEurope',1,1,'1004470.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Digital_divide',1,1,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Digital_rights_management',1,2,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Digital_television',4,1,'100231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Digital_television',4,1,'100267.txt','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Digital_television',4,1,'1004129.txt','Mr President, the UMTS licences were auctioned for very large sums. What effect will that have on digital television licences? I believe that new jobs have been created precisely by these initiatives, which also involve very substantial investments. What view do you take of the development of risk capital in this field?','Mr President, the UMTS licences were auctioned for very large sums. What effect will that have on digital television licences? I believe that new jobs have been created precisely by these initiatives, which also involve very substantial investments. What view do you take of the development of risk capital in this field?'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Digital_television',4,1,'1004470.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Dignity',8,1,'100148.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Dignity',8,1,'100239.txt','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Dignity',8,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Dignity',8,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Dignity',8,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Dignity',8,1,'1004109.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since I am relatively new to this House, though not new to politics, I would like to begin by saying something about myself. I once presented a youth petition for a referendum for service and justice and against privilege. I have helped to get rules on incompatibility tightened up, worked on new rules for the separation of politics and business, on measures and decrees for greater objectivity in the filling of public sector posts and the setting up of a group of experts for the shaping of a salary structure covering all public functions in my homeland, from the Federal President to the mayors of larger towns. The question of service and justice, mandate, profession and privilege runs through my entire political career and is always a question of the credibility of politics with the citizens. For this very reason I have argued for this question to be put to the Council, because since I have been in this House I have always had the feeling that there is no shortage of rumours, of mutual recriminations in Parliament and Council and between the groups, but no statute. The cause of our problem actually lies in the fact that, although we have all been elected to this House, we are not treated equally. Part of our problem is that we have 15 national electoral laws and no European electoral law, that we do not have one incompatibility rule but several different ones. That is one problem. We have already discussed this topic in 1998, 1999 and in April 2001. The President has told us that we have now almost reached our destination and we therefore wanted to know from the Council what matters are still outstanding and how we will reach our destination. Today again we get no answer from the Council – because that was no answer. I therefore ask myself how close we are to the destination if we cannot clearly say what the outstanding points are. At the same time, I witnessed a press conference this morning at which accusations were raised against everyone who mentions the Rothley report, which is a report from a committee and contains an opinion for the President. I consider such behaviour intolerable and the claims that were made to be untrue, and I ask myself: who is damaging the dignity of this House and the respect in which it is held? Is it those who make reference to a decision by a parliamentary committee or an opinion addressed to the presidency, or those who ignore that decision and want to start a parallel action? No national mandate can be compared with the mandate in the European Parliament. The time involved is greater, the distance is greater and we have less time at home than any of our counterparts. We have a decision from the Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which forms the basis for the President’s talks. We have a group of experts that has come to a conclusion so that no one can say we are arranging things to our own liking. We have the Rothley report and we have the legal situation where we adopt our statute and the Council approves it so it can enter into force. With this question we wanted greater transparency instead of rumours, greater clarity instead of recriminations. We wanted the Council’s answer, which sadly was no answer, to bring us a step closer to the decision we need. Nor do we want to be messed about by political opportunists or the Council’s indecision. I say to you, if we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. We must therefore resist opportunism and single-mindedly go the way we in this Parliament have decided on the basis of the law. We are of course always ready to split the report into a constitutional part and the remainder if they give us detailed reasons for doing so, but sadly this question went unanswered today as well. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since I am relatively new to this House, though not new to politics, I would like to begin by saying something about myself. I once presented a youth petition for a referendum for service and justice and against privilege. I have helped to get rules on incompatibility tightened up, worked on new rules for the separation of politics and business, on measures and decrees for greater objectivity in the filling of public sector posts and the setting up of a group of experts for the shaping of a salary structure covering all public functions in my homeland, from the Federal President to the mayors of larger towns. The question of service and justice, mandate, profession and privilege runs through my entire political career and is always a question of the credibility of politics with the citizens. For this very reason I have argued for this question to be put to the Council, because since I have been in this House I have always had the feeling that there is no shortage of rumours, of mutual recriminations in Parliament and Council and between the groups, but no statute. The cause of our problem actually lies in the fact that, although we have all been elected to this House, we are not treated equally. Part of our problem is that we have 15 national electoral laws and no European electoral law, that we do not have one incompatibility rule but several different ones. That is one problem. We have already discussed this topic in 1998, 1999 and in April 2001. The President has told us that we have now almost reached our destination and we therefore wanted to know from the Council what matters are still outstanding and how we will reach our destination. Today again we get no answer from the Council – because that was no answer. I therefore ask myself how close we are to the destination if we cannot clearly say what the outstanding points are. At the same time, I witnessed a press conference this morning at which accusations were raised against everyone who mentions the Rothley report, which is a report from a committee and contains an opinion for the President. I consider such behaviour intolerable and the claims that were made to be untrue, and I ask myself: who is damaging the dignity of this House and the respect in which it is held? Is it those who make reference to a decision by a parliamentary committee or an opinion addressed to the presidency, or those who ignore that decision and want to start a parallel action? No national mandate can be compared with the mandate in the European Parliament. The time involved is greater, the distance is greater and we have less time at home than any of our counterparts. We have a decision from the Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which forms the basis for the President’s talks. We have a group of experts that has come to a conclusion so that no one can say we are arranging things to our own liking. We have the Rothley report and we have the legal situation where we adopt our statute and the Council approves it so it can enter into force. With this question we wanted greater transparency instead of rumours, greater clarity instead of recriminations. We wanted the Council’s answer, which sadly was no answer, to bring us a step closer to the decision we need. Nor do we want to be messed about by political opportunists or the Council’s indecision. I say to you, if we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. We must therefore resist opportunism and single-mindedly go the way we in this Parliament have decided on the basis of the law. We are of course always ready to split the report into a constitutional part and the remainder if they give us detailed reasons for doing so, but sadly this question went unanswered today as well. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Dignity',8,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Dignity',8,1,'1004437.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing; on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another; it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer; our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Diploma',1,1,'1004341.txt','The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people.','The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Diplomacy',5,1,'1001170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Diplomacy',5,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Diplomacy',5,1,'1004408.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Diplomacy',5,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Diplomacy',5,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Diplomatic_mission',1,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001139.txt','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001178.txt','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,2,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,2,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'100153.txt','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'100191.txt','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays; increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'100192.txt','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004112.txt','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004128.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,2,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004285.txt','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004306.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004312.txt','The Commission has, at the request of Parliament, submitted two framework directives. As these are within the competence of the European Institutions, we have voted to approve them, even though we do not agree with everything that they contain.','The Commission has, at the request of Parliament, submitted two framework directives. As these are within the competence of the European Institutions, we have voted to approve them, even though we do not agree with everything that they contain.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004345.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004394.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you have spoken of the lengthy payment procedures which have an adverse effect on the image of the European Union in the various actions it takes. We are currently in the middle of a conciliation procedure for the late payment directive, in other words, this is not just a problem in external relations it is also a problem within Europe. I think that it would make sense if you as Commissioner supported the view that the late payment directive should also apply to the European institutions, because then payment could be made, if there was a legal basis, within a certain period of time, namely between 21 and 30 days or, we hope, even sooner. The idea is that the late payment directive could also be applied in these areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, you have spoken of the lengthy payment procedures which have an adverse effect on the image of the European Union in the various actions it takes. We are currently in the middle of a conciliation procedure for the late payment directive, in other words, this is not just a problem in external relations; it is also a problem within Europe. I think that it would make sense if you as Commissioner supported the view that the late payment directive should also apply to the European institutions, because then payment could be made, if there was a legal basis, within a certain period of time, namely between 21 and 30 days or, we hope, even sooner. The idea is that the late payment directive could also be applied in these areas.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004403.txt','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004424.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.'),(8.44023215016011,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,3,'1004435.txt','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,2,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004470.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004483.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,2,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004566.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004568.txt','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.','Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this initiative because transparency and benchmarking are the most important basic prerequisites for functioning competition. It would be worth considering – and this is the point of my question – whether you could envisage leaving it to a standardisation committee to make a voluntary decision on this issue in the first round, and only resorting to technical legislation, i.e. to the adoption of a regulation or a directive, when this is seen not to be working?  Perhaps it would make sense to implement it on a voluntary basis to begin with, taking particular account, of course, of the companies, i.e. those on the receiving end, the rating agencies and the tax offices. Furthermore, I believe the offshoot of this is that a measure of this kind should not, of course, be applied as strictly to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not listed on the stock market.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Directive_(European_Union)',60,2,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Directive_96/82/EC',1,1,'1004106.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Directive_on_services_in_the_internal_market',2,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Directive_on_services_in_the_internal_market',2,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Directorate-General_for_Competition',1,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Direct_democracy',1,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Direct_election',1,1,'100421.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dirty_Work_(1998_film)',1,1,'1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disability',5,1,'1001182.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disability',5,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disability',5,1,'1004417.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff; the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disability',5,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disability',5,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Disability_rights_movement',1,1,'1004424.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Discipline_(academia)',5,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Discipline_(academia)',5,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Discipline_(academia)',5,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Discipline_(academia)',5,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Discipline_(academia)',5,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Discourse',1,1,'1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1001263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1001282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties; not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'100135.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!'),(6.540338238459502,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,2,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(6.540338238459502,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,2,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004251.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004270.txt','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004317.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004419.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004458.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004459.txt','Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.','Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004462.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people. That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the ageing workforce. Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: \"But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people\". That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the \"ageing workforce\". Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years; today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(6.540338238459502,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,2,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(6.540338238459502,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,2,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(3.270169119229751,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(6.540338238459502,3.270169119229751,1000,'Discrimination',38,2,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disease',5,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disease',5,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disease',5,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disease',5,1,'1004318.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Disease',5,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Disgust',1,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Disinfectant',1,1,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Disinformation',1,1,'1001129.txt','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Diskless_shared-root_cluster',1,1,'10027.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Disposable_and_discretionary_income',1,1,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dispute_resolution',1,1,'1004419.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dispute_Settlement_Body',1,1,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union',4,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union',4,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union',4,1,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union',4,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Distribution_(economics)',5,1,'1001115.txt','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Distribution_(economics)',5,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Distribution_(economics)',5,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Distribution_(economics)',5,1,'1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Distribution_(economics)',5,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Division_of_labour',2,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Division_of_labour',2,1,'1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Djibouti',2,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Djibouti',2,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'DNA',1,1,'1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Do-support',1,1,'1004147.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Doctor_of_both_laws',1,1,'100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Doctrine',1,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dog',1,1,'1004205.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Doha',2,1,'1004121.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me first congratulate you on your success in the Doha negotiations. I believe that the European delegation, to which I belonged, did very well to bring the negotiations to their conclusion. We stand a good chance of completing this round successfully. Our hosts in Doha also looked after us extremely well, something which I think was a fundamental requirement. What Mr Hans-Peter Martin is referring to, though, is the dialogue with the NGOs, a point I would like to probe further with reference to the Parliamentary Assembly. I do not believe it is feasible for this discussion to be carried on every couple of years and at the same location. Do you not think too that it would make more sense for parliamentarians from the various countries to be able to get together over a period of time and jointly to work through this subject, which is so crucial for the future, in a professional and detailed way?','Mr President, Commissioner, let me first congratulate you on your success in the Doha negotiations. I believe that the European delegation, to which I belonged, did very well to bring the negotiations to their conclusion. We stand a good chance of completing this round successfully. Our hosts in Doha also looked after us extremely well, something which I think was a fundamental requirement. What Mr Hans-Peter Martin is referring to, though, is the dialogue with the NGOs, a point I would like to probe further with reference to the Parliamentary Assembly. I do not believe it is feasible for this discussion to be carried on every couple of years and at the same location. Do you not think too that it would make more sense for parliamentarians from the various countries to be able to get together over a period of time and jointly to work through this subject, which is so crucial for the future, in a professional and detailed way?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Doha',2,1,'1004347.txt','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38) – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39) – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.','In principle, I regard the Commission\'s proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament\'s amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Domain_name',1,2,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Domestication',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Domicile_(law)',1,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(18.643824295266576,6.214608098422191,1000,'Donation',2,3,'1001120.txt','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Donation',2,1,'100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Dont_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater',2,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Dont_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater',2,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Doomsday_Clock',1,2,'1004309.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet; this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Doris_Pack',2,1,'100264.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur; well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again; perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Doris_Pack',2,1,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dot-com_bubble',1,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Double_criminality',1,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Double_majority',1,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Double_taxation',1,1,'1004103.txt','Mr President , I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?','Mr President , I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Doubt',1,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dover_Publications',1,1,'1004297.txt','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Do_the_Live',1,1,'1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Drafting_water',1,1,'1004475.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures contained in this directive range from drafting water management plans, comprehensive information and hearing rights, and close cooperation between the Member States, to combating water pollution caused by individual pollutants. And considering how long this Chamber has been trying to introduce a framework directive of this kind, I am pleased to be present here today, and I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on being in the happy position of presenting this report to us. However, it is also extremely important to me to point something out that many people actually take for granted. I would still like to highlight this point though: this directive does not constitute any kind of legal basis for diverting water from a Member State’s territory against its will. And by way of reaffirming this once again, I have introduced an amendment – gratifyingly with the support of a large number of Members – and I would be very pleased if Parliament would endorse my proposed amendment tomorrow. It is all about making it clear that water – and this is not the first time this has been mentioned today – is no ordinary commodity but a resource which belongs to the individual EU Member States and which must be protected and treated with the respect due to it. I am aware, and the previous speaker highlighted this, that there are States in the European Union that have problems with water. I believe that every one of us, in every country, could improve the way in which we manage our water and could make use of it in a cleaner way. This applies to every country. But only when each country has done its utmost to conserve its water resources, when literally everything has been done that could have been done in our own countries, only then, in my view, should it be necessary to start thinking in terms of harmonising water usage.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures contained in this directive range from drafting water management plans, comprehensive information and hearing rights, and close cooperation between the Member States, to combating water pollution caused by individual pollutants. And considering how long this Chamber has been trying to introduce a framework directive of this kind, I am pleased to be present here today, and I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on being in the happy position of presenting this report to us. However, it is also extremely important to me to point something out that many people actually take for granted. I would still like to highlight this point though: this directive does not constitute any kind of legal basis for diverting water from a Member State’s territory against its will. And by way of reaffirming this once again, I have introduced an amendment – gratifyingly with the support of a large number of Members – and I would be very pleased if Parliament would endorse my proposed amendment tomorrow. It is all about making it clear that water – and this is not the first time this has been mentioned today – is no ordinary commodity but a resource which belongs to the individual EU Member States and which must be protected and treated with the respect due to it. I am aware, and the previous speaker highlighted this, that there are States in the European Union that have problems with water. I believe that every one of us, in every country, could improve the way in which we manage our water and could make use of it in a cleaner way. This applies to every country. But only when each country has done its utmost to conserve its water resources, when literally everything has been done that could have been done in our own countries, only then, in my view, should it be necessary to start thinking in terms of harmonising water usage.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Draft_(hull)',1,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Drivers_license',2,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Drivers_license',2,1,'1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Driving_under_the_influence',1,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Droit_de_suite',3,1,'1001127.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade; in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Droit_de_suite',3,1,'1001214.txt','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences; the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Droit_de_suite',3,1,'1001248.txt','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Drug',3,2,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Drug',3,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Drug',3,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Drug-related_crime',1,1,'1004559.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dry_dock',1,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dualism',4,1,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dualism',4,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dualism',4,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dualism',4,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dual_basis',1,1,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dubai',1,1,'100410.txt','Mr President, please allow me to add something to what Mrs Gebhardt has said. The things she has described have made a deep impression on me, but, Mrs Gebhardt, there was just one thing missing. The reason why these violations of human rights outrage us is that a European woman is involved. We should, though, be aware that Muslim women – and not only in Dubai – are exposed to the same violations of human rights on a daily basis.','Mr President, please allow me to add something to what Mrs Gebhardt has said. The things she has described have made a deep impression on me, but, Mrs Gebhardt, there was just one thing missing. The reason why these violations of human rights outrage us is that a European woman is involved. We should, though, be aware that Muslim women – and not only in Dubai – are exposed to the same violations of human rights on a daily basis.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Dublin',3,1,'1001233.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Dublin',3,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Dublin',3,1,'1004535.txt','Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.','Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system; on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community; on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal; we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dublin_Regulation',4,1,'1001152.txt','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dublin_Regulation',4,1,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dublin_Regulation',4,1,'1004367.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Dublin_Regulation',4,1,'1004471.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Durban',2,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Durban',2,1,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Duress',1,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Dutch_auction',1,1,'1004361.txt','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,1,'1001148.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,1,'1001185.txt','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.'),(9.421061403289835,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,2,'10023.txt','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty. Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty\". Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,1,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(9.421061403289835,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,2,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,1,'1004479.txt','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Duty',9,1,'1004610.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'1004131.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker; it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,2,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'1004182.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'1004392.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'100457.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,2,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'E-commerce',11,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'E-procurement',1,1,'1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Earmark_(politics)',2,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Earmark_(politics)',2,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Earth',6,2,'1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Earth',6,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Earth',6,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Earth',6,1,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Earth',6,1,'1004457.txt','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up; they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more; instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Earth',6,1,'1004471.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Earth:_Final_Conflict',1,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Earth_Summit',1,1,'1001139.txt','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Earth_Summit_2002',2,1,'100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Earth_Summit_2002',2,1,'1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Easier_Said_Than_Done',1,1,'100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.'),(8.6856118430392,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,2,'100118.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'1001222.txt','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'100133.txt','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.'),(8.6856118430392,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,2,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'1004127.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and the entire committee for their work. The harmonisation and liberalisation of rail transport in the EU is an important step towards the aims of transferring more transport from road to rail and creating an integrated intermodal transport system. In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, it is essential that the trans-European network projects affecting the eastern part of Austria should actually be implemented on schedule. This infrastructure is needed to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the population of those areas and to ensure that they remain favourably disposed to enlargement. These are normal projects, relating to the rail and road networks and the Danube improvement scheme. One word on a topical issue: we all know that every Member State has its own particular set of circumstances and its own problems. May I therefore appeal again today to all those involved in the ecopoints negotiations to work out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and the entire committee for their work. The harmonisation and liberalisation of rail transport in the EU is an important step towards the aims of transferring more transport from road to rail and creating an integrated intermodal transport system. In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, it is essential that the trans-European network projects affecting the eastern part of Austria should actually be implemented on schedule. This infrastructure is needed to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the population of those areas and to ensure that they remain favourably disposed to enlargement. These are normal projects, relating to the rail and road networks and the Danube improvement scheme. One word on a topical issue: we all know that every Member State has its own particular set of circumstances and its own problems. May I therefore appeal again today to all those involved in the ecopoints negotiations to work out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'1004201.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5% in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5%; in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(8.6856118430392,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,2,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'1004432.txt','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended; to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous; it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes; we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need; they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eastern_Europe',13,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'East_Timor',2,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'East_Timor',2,1,'1004434.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to ask the Minister if it has been thought to include the International Monetary Fund in these discussions about financial resources for East Timor, Turkey and Kosovo so that we do not have to bear the burden alone.','Mr President, I just wanted to ask the Minister if it has been thought to include the International Monetary Fund in these discussions about financial resources for East Timor, Turkey and Kosovo so that we do not have to bear the burden alone.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Eco-Management_and_Audit_Scheme',1,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Eco-social_market_economy',4,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Eco-social_market_economy',4,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Eco-social_market_economy',4,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Eco-social_market_economy',4,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ecological_economics',1,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1001259.txt','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'100194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'100196.txt','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1004106.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'100411.txt','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1004155.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1004477.txt','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles; we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'Ecology',16,1,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights',3,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights',3,2,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights',3,2,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(5.694624536831435,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,2,'100111.txt','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001130.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001153.txt','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001166.txt','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001221.txt','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001271.txt','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.'),(5.694624536831435,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,2,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100147.txt','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(8.541936805247154,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,3,'100171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State; how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified; if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.'),(5.694624536831435,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,2,'100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(5.694624536831435,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,2,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004131.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker; it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004149.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004182.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004248.txt','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004293.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004306.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004332.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black; the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004404.txt','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioners individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Mens second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioner\"s individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Men\"s second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004420.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(5.694624536831435,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,2,'1004559.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004572.txt','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term; support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways; such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(5.694624536831435,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,2,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(2.8473122684157177,2.8473122684157177,1000,'Economics',58,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council',6,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council',6,2,'1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council',6,2,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council',6,2,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council',6,2,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economic_and_Financial_Affairs_Council',6,2,'1004631.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you know that as the rapporteur on this issue, this is of great interest to me. As regards your current statement, which is hopefully more comprehensive and detailed on paper than what we have just heard, I have two main problems: firstly, how do you verify that the funds provided by the European Union for the information campaign are actually being used efficiently and constructively, and in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations and the basic political message, in the Member States? I ask this question because I have the feeling that we have become more of a channel for EU funding and are relinquishing our leading role in the information campaign under the guise of subsidiarity. And secondly: what do you intend to do to persuade the Ministers responsible, especially the ECOFIN Council, and include them in this much-needed action programme in the information campaign on a mandatory basis, not just in an advisory capacity?','Mr President, Commissioner, you know that as the rapporteur on this issue, this is of great interest to me. As regards your current statement, which is hopefully more comprehensive and detailed on paper than what we have just heard, I have two main problems: firstly, how do you verify that the funds provided by the European Union for the information campaign are actually being used efficiently and constructively, and in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations and the basic political message, in the Member States? I ask this question because I have the feeling that we have become more of a channel for EU funding and are relinquishing our leading role in the information campaign under the guise of subsidiarity. And secondly: what do you intend to do to persuade the Ministers responsible, especially the ECOFIN Council, and include them in this much-needed action programme in the information campaign on a mandatory basis, not just in an advisory capacity?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic_and_monetary_union',3,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic_and_monetary_union',3,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic_and_monetary_union',3,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,2,'1001130.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1001216.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001135.txt','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001200.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001203.txt','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001246.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1001264.txt','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100150.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004102.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004126.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004454.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(6.031869961713021,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,2,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(3.0159349808565104,3.0159349808565104,1000,'Economic_development',49,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economic_efficiency',1,1,'1004587.txt','Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport. As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?','Mr President, my question relates to the Green Paper \"Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport\". As harmful emissions are a key measure of how transport and mobility should be regulated in future, are there any plans to consider, in the research field, carrying out cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the areas of transport in which low-emission or zero-emission options would be of greatest benefit?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economic_equilibrium',1,1,'1004623.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, we have examined the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in great detail and have held intensive and controversial discussions, not only with the Commission, but with all those who are in favour of total liberalisation of the sugar market. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly because he has, in my view, succeeded in achieving a very good result in his report. Time and again it is said that sugar is too expensive and that it needs to be cheaper for consumers. I should simply like to refer to the BSE crisis. It shows that, although farmers are seeing prices fall by up to 30%, the consumer still pays the same price for the meat in the shops. I therefore fully support the extension of the organisation of the market in sugar until the marketing year 2005/2006. In my opinion, this is the key point in this proposal. This end date also coincides with that in the Berlin agreement, in which CAP funding is established for six years. We farmers need a policy on which we can rely. The sector\'s stakeholders, the sugar beet producers as well as the sugar manufacturers, need to be able to look far enough ahead to make appropriate investment decisions. In this context I should like to mention the imminent accession of new countries. I do not think that it would have been very prudent to establish a new COM for only two years, as originally proposed, because this would only have caused confusion and led to uncertainty. As far as the arrangements for storage levies are concerned, I can only fully support the rapporteur when he advocates that they should be maintained. They are an important instrument to keep the market stable and they have proved their worth over 30 years. It would be very short-sighted to disturb the equilibrium in a market organisation of this kind – which works perfectly – simply for the sake of reform.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Economic_globalization',2,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Economic_globalization',2,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001160.txt','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001177.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001191.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001193.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001264.txt','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1001295.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004142.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004187.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(6.340171321353537,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,2,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(6.340171321353537,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,2,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004572.txt','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term; support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways; such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(3.1700856606767687,3.1700856606767687,1000,'Economic_growth',42,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economic_indicator',1,1,'100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic_inequality',3,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic_inequality',3,1,'100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Economic_inequality',3,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economic_interventionism',1,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economic_migrant',1,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Economic_policy',5,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Economic_policy',5,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Economic_policy',5,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Economic_policy',5,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Economic_policy',5,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economic_sanctions',1,1,'1004147.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1001271.txt','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1004165.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1004379.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are many reasons why, in principle, I welcome what the Commission has submitted: firstly, because the Commission is sending a signal to the Member States that they are not alone in the problems of migration, refugees and displaced persons secondly, because it at least regulates in part the distribution of the burden and, thirdly, because the Commission is proposing a differentiated package of responsibilities for two different groups, namely recognised refugees and displaced persons, i.e. persons temporarily seeking protection. I welcome the proposal because it clearly defines the target groups, because the acceptance conditions will be improved and the integration of refugees supported, and because the re-integration of temporary refugees will be promoted. However, I do not share the view that Mrs Frahm’s report can be accepted almost without criticism because I consider that measures which go beyond these defined responsibilities are inappropriate. Firstly, the money is not available and, secondly, there are other totally different groups which have a claim to it if you are talking here about groups which are particularly in need of protection, and we are unquestionably talking about persons within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. I also do not support your proposals for measures which are incompatible with the particular groups. When it comes to refugees, the measures should be different to those for displaced persons. You cannot, in the case of displaced persons whose main concern is to return to their homeland, require that the host country integrate them into the labour market. That contradicts the basic intention. However, we must seek to make an amendment when it comes to the allocation of funds, taking the number of refugees or displaced persons per capita of the population of a Member State as the basis. One final point which I would like to mention, and I do not understand why Mrs Frahm does not want this, is that we must also have the option to make money available for refugee reception centres. You reject this and I simply cannot see why, because this is the first point of contact where we can provide specific help, accelerate processes and promote refugee integration. However, in all the proposed measures, we must not fail to recognise that one objective has not been addressed here, namely taking into account the distribution of the refugee burden. Please do so in implementing the measures which are necessary and positive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are many reasons why, in principle, I welcome what the Commission has submitted: firstly, because the Commission is sending a signal to the Member States that they are not alone in the problems of migration, refugees and displaced persons; secondly, because it at least regulates in part the distribution of the burden; and, thirdly, because the Commission is proposing a differentiated package of responsibilities for two different groups, namely recognised refugees and displaced persons, i.e. persons temporarily seeking protection. I welcome the proposal because it clearly defines the target groups, because the acceptance conditions will be improved and the integration of refugees supported, and because the re-integration of temporary refugees will be promoted. However, I do not share the view that Mrs Frahm’s report can be accepted almost without criticism because I consider that measures which go beyond these defined responsibilities are inappropriate. Firstly, the money is not available and, secondly, there are other totally different groups which have a claim to it if you are talking here about groups which are particularly in need of protection, and we are unquestionably talking about persons within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. I also do not support your proposals for measures which are incompatible with the particular groups. When it comes to refugees, the measures should be different to those for displaced persons. You cannot, in the case of displaced persons whose main concern is to return to their homeland, require that the host country integrate them into the labour market. That contradicts the basic intention. However, we must seek to make an amendment when it comes to the allocation of funds, taking the number of refugees or displaced persons per capita of the population of a Member State as the basis. One final point which I would like to mention, and I do not understand why Mrs Frahm does not want this, is that we must also have the option to make money available for refugee reception centres. You reject this and I simply cannot see why, because this is the first point of contact where we can provide specific help, accelerate processes and promote refugee integration. However, in all the proposed measures, we must not fail to recognise that one objective has not been addressed here, namely taking into account the distribution of the refugee burden. Please do so in implementing the measures which are necessary and positive.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1004403.txt','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economic_system',11,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Economies_of_scale',2,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Economies_of_scale',2,1,'1004477.txt','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles; we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001103.txt','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001115.txt','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001121.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001142.txt','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100115.txt','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001193.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001230.txt','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001250.txt','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001253.txt','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001259.txt','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100159.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State; how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified; if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004106.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004112.txt','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100415.txt','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes; they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004165.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004187.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004213.txt','Commissioner, I would like to ask a question on the economic situation. In Slovakia, the package of economy measures has entailed some problems and privations for the population. It is therefore important to stabilise the economic situation. We know in Europe small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the economy. What do you intend to do to expedite economic stability here and especially to establish contact between neighbouring States, located in direct proximity to the European Union? What programmes are envisaged here to get privatisation on the right road too? You know, there were considerable problems with the Meciar Government when privatisation went ahead. I believe that there is a great need for economic rehabilitation, and I believe it is extremely important for Slovakia. I would like to thank you expressly for the fact that you are going to propose that the appropriate negotiations begin in Helsinki. I believe this is a very important contribution that Europe can make.','Commissioner, I would like to ask a question on the economic situation. In Slovakia, the package of economy measures has entailed some problems and privations for the population. It is therefore important to stabilise the economic situation. We know in Europe small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the economy. What do you intend to do to expedite economic stability here and especially to establish contact between neighbouring States, located in direct proximity to the European Union? What programmes are envisaged here to get privatisation on the right road too? You know, there were considerable problems with the Meciar Government when privatisation went ahead. I believe that there is a great need for economic rehabilitation, and I believe it is extremely important for Slovakia. I would like to thank you expressly for the fact that you are going to propose that the appropriate negotiations begin in Helsinki. I believe this is a very important contribution that Europe can make.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004247.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004293.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004341.txt','The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people.','The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004477.txt','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles; we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004524.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004526.txt','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax; it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'100462.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?','Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that the imposition of punitive duties is a very powerful instrument which may threaten the economic survival of individual undertakings. That is the reason for my question: Which methods could you envisage in future to protect enterprises from the adverse effects of such measures? Would compensation, tax relief or other options be a possibility so that individual enterprises do not have to bear the consequences of a dispute settlement procedure?'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004624.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.'),(2.24431618485407,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(4.48863236970814,2.24431618485407,1000,'Economy',106,2,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economy_of_Argentina',1,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economy_of_Austria',1,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economy_of_Belgium',1,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economy_of_China',1,1,'1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economy_of_Europe',6,1,'1001115.txt','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economy_of_Europe',6,1,'1001135.txt','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economy_of_Europe',6,1,'1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economy_of_Europe',6,1,'100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economy_of_Europe',6,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Economy_of_Europe',6,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economy_of_Singapore',1,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004474.txt','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Economy_of_the_European_Union',11,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Economy_of_the_United_States',1,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Ecosystem',4,1,'100128.txt','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Ecosystem',4,1,'10021.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Ecosystem',4,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Ecosystem',4,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ecotoxicity',1,1,'1004289.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to hear yesterday’s speech by the new President-in-Office of the Council, Jacques Chirac, in which he told us that we should pay more heed to the precautionary principle in environmental matters than we have until now. I do not know if Mr Chirac was familiar with the detail of this report, but in any case he gave us a very clear pointer on how to vote tomorrow. All phthalates should be banned from plastic toys, not just six. After all, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed certain reservations about the most commonly used phthalate, and had serious concerns about another. If we are to take our work at all seriously, then we should invoke the precautionary principle and ban the use of all phthalates as plasticisers. Several of the 15 Member States – and there are 15 of us, not 14, Mr President – have applied this European precautionary principle concept, and that includes my own country, Austria. We brought in a ban on all plasticisers in the phthalate group in an order published in Federal Law Gazette II No 225 in 1998. I can only recommend this to the other Member States. And I do not mean that in a bilateral sense, but in the framework of the Community of Fifteen. Let me make a second comment. If we were only to ban things when we had absolute scientific proof, then, my goodness, how ashamed we should all be now. How could we allow these six phthalates to be used as plasticisers in PVC without having scientific proof at that time that they were harmless? When our children’s health was at stake, we did not cry out for scientific proof. Let us try tomorrow to rectify our past mistakes.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Edmund_Stoiber',1,1,'1001255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1001135.txt','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1001174.txt','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100118.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100148.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,2,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100264.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur; well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again; perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100269.txt','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000 nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)','A very good evening to you, Mr President, at this late hour, shortly before midnight, when we few are together. I would just like to play a question and answer game with you. Let us talk about an international hit film, a European film that has been a success around the world. Let us take as our example the film ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’. Do you know who wrote the script? No? Shame on you! Do you know who composed the music for it? That neither! Do you know who directed it? Perhaps someone can remember? No, they cannot. Could you tell me who the film’s backers were, or who its producer was? Hmm. I assume, though, that you have heard of its two stars, Hugh Grant and Andy McDowell. We could carry on this question-and-answer game for ever and a day, whether with ‘Amélie’ or with ‘The Pianist’, it does not matter which. Both directors and producers know all too well what is valuable to them about their actors – firstly, their talent, and secondly their name – whilst the public have quite personal reasons for their adulation of their celluloid heroes and heroines. Successes at film festivals, the sought-after jangling of money in box-office tills, good viewer figures – all these things are directly dependent on a performer’s quality as an actor and on his or her popularity with the public. Let me clarify this by saying that I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assess the merits of any one of the creative professions in the film world; such is not my objective. Film-making is a collaborative effort in which everyone is important, from the author to the producer. All are doing their work, and all of them – with the exception of one professional group – are protected internationally. Authors enjoy the protection of the Berne Convention and of the WIPO copyright treaties. Producers and players of music are protected internationally by the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Even television stations, which are, primarily, more consumers than creators, have their rights guaranteed by the Rome Convention, and these are to be brought up to date by the WIPO treaty on the rights of broadcasting companies, something that is awaited, being urgently necessary, right and important. Performers in films, though, are still not covered by the Performers and Phonograms Treaty. Why? Since 1996, negotiations within the WIPO have produced no favourable outcome for the heroes and heroines of the screen, who also got no result from the diplomatic conference in December 2000; nor did bilateral meetings between WIPO members achieve the desired objective. The signatory states are now to meet again, in Geneva, from 18 to 20 June. Performers in films have been waiting for years for a minimum of protection for their copyrights at an international level. Whilst the EU has always acknowledged the economic importance of artistic output, we know all too well that what is today the work of an artist will tomorrow be part of our cultural heritage. Within the EU, performers are protected by national legislation, but in most countries their rights are minimal or non-existent. The failure to harmonise these rights internationally means that the performers in works originating in the EU are no longer protected, so that their free circulation is curtailed, with adverse effects on the distribution of European works at an international level. All in all, then, these are hardly good conditions. You will be familiar with the saying that ‘the world is a village’. Technological developments over recent years, media convergence and technological developments yet to come mean that this saying is more true than ever before. Borders are eliminated and obstacles removed, legislators and all interested parties are faced with a plethora of challenges. One of them is that of providing international protection for the work of performers, in respect of which the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport wishes to send Geneva a political signal. As it is the Commission that will be representing the EU’s Member States at the WIPO negotiations in June of this year, we would like to put the following questions to you and be given answers to them. What view does the Commission take of this discrepancy between audiovisual performers and other creative artists? Should they not enjoy the same international protection as all their colleagues in the music world? Is the Commission able to inform us of the current position in the WIPO negotiations as regards audiovisual performers? Thirdly, what actions does the Commission contemplate taking in order to do away with this discrimination against one single professional group? (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'10027.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100278.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or Lingua. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or \"Lingua\". Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'10028.txt','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused; as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100288.txt','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,2,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,2,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'100419.txt','One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?','One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004220.txt','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,2,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004331.txt','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004341.txt','The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people.','The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004366.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004413.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,2,'1004444.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in addition to what has been said already, with which I can only concur, may I reiterate that the foundations for the future prospects of the youth of tomorrow are laid in the classrooms of today and that brainpower will be the key asset of the future. Among the basic skills we now have to learn is how to teach young people to cope with the rapid changes that are taking place in the present era. These basic skills also include the ability to motivate individuals to engage in lifelong learning, to arouse their curiosity, to foster their willingness to be mobile, flexible and open-minded and to accept responsibility and to train them to be independent. Let me just cite one example of this motivation and support. In my own country of Austria, this type of benchmarking, in the form of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Pop 3 study, in which we did not perform particularly well, has led to the establishment of a programme known as Qualität in Schulen (Q.I.S – Quality in Schools). At the heart of this project is the school curriculum. It contains a model for schools to follow and statements relating to the present situation and enumerates specific aims and measures for the promotion of quality in various areas. It is a fixed-term agreement with an impact inside and outside schools, providing guidelines for educational practice as well as information for the public and serving as a planning instrument and a yardstick against which the development of a school can be measured. Comparison creates competition, and competition promotes individuality among schools and hence a variety of models for guidance. This is the path we must pursue.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004458.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004524.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.'),(11.253642866880146,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,4,'1004527.txt','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004572.txt','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term; support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways; such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,2,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004588.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(5.626821433440073,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,2,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(2.8134107167200364,2.8134107167200364,1000,'Education',60,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Educational_institution',1,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Educational_technology',5,2,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Educational_technology',5,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Educational_technology',5,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Educational_technology',5,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Educational_technology',5,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Education_policy',2,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Education_policy',2,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Edvard_Beneš',1,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Effective_method',1,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Effects_of_global_warming',1,1,'100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Efficiency',2,1,'1001293.txt','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Efficiency',2,2,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Efficient_energy_use',5,1,'100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Efficient_energy_use',5,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Efficient_energy_use',5,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Efficient_energy_use',5,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Efficient_energy_use',5,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'100115.txt','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1001263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(7.223836825953616,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,2,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'100286.txt','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'100287.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004250.txt','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous; quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004333.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004485.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004524.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society by 2010, this is not just a question of economic and industrial policy but above all a question of education and training. Another area is the operation of the labour market and how it is changing as a matter of necessity. At the interface between the two areas lie the efforts to promote high quality training and further training and the protection of mutual cross-border recognition of professional qualifications. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. In my address today I would like to go into one aspect in particular, namely the equality, in terms of level and conditions, of the professional qualifications of service providers and for freedom of establishment. The requirements for the activity are the same, regardless of whether we are talking about a service or an establishment. The activities are no different. I cannot therefore understand why recognition of professional qualifications is provided for establishment, but no provision is made for the recognition of professional qualifications for the provision of services. I do not think this distinction is right. The present arrangement may even be contrary to Article 50 of the EC Treaty. This allows services to be provided in an EU Member State subject to the same conditions as that State prescribes for its own nationals. The conditions include equivalence of evidence of qualifications, provided such evidence is required in the host Member State. To remove this problem, I ask you to vote in favour of Amendment No 213 tabled by Mr Zappalà and myself.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Egalitarianism',27,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Egotism',1,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Egypt',2,1,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Egypt',2,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Ehud_Barak',2,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Ehud_Barak',2,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'1001260.txt','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,2,'1004401.txt','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?','Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'10045.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away; the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Election',11,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom',1,1,'10040.txt','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Elections_in_Turkey',2,1,'1004393.txt','Madam President, I just wanted to say to Mr Swoboda that he sometimes finds it difficult to decide whether he is speaking here as the Vice-Chairman of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, as a Viennese politician, or as a former Viennese politician. I sometimes get the impression that his statements have more to do with the fact that there are local elections in Vienna on 25 March.','Madam President, I just wanted to say to Mr Swoboda that he sometimes finds it difficult to decide whether he is speaking here as the Vice-Chairman of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, as a Viennese politician, or as a former Viennese politician. I sometimes get the impression that his statements have more to do with the fact that there are local elections in Vienna on 25 March.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Elections_in_Turkey',2,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,2,'1001299.txt','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,1,'100167.txt','Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo\'s model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe\'s future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions. I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.','Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo\'s model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe\'s future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions. I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,1,'10040.txt','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.','Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,1,'1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,2,'100421.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,1,'1004404.txt','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioners individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Mens second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioner\"s individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Men\"s second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Elections_to_the_European_Parliament',10,1,'1004583.txt','Mr President, I want to ask about Europe’s next big ‘referendum’, namely the elections to the European Parliament on 13 June next year. What is the Presidency contemplating doing to increase voter turnout on that day, along with their understanding of the European Union?','Mr President, I want to ask about Europe’s next big ‘referendum’, namely the elections to the European Parliament on 13 June next year. What is the Presidency contemplating doing to increase voter turnout on that day, along with their understanding of the European Union?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Election_law',2,1,'1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Election_law',2,1,'1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Electoral_fraud',1,1,'1004466.txt','Madam President, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are also very keen to put a stop to fraud in all areas in the Union. (Applause)  We still do not have any right of codetermination in agriculture, which is why our only option is to refer this report back to committee and I urge the House to vote in favour of my motion.','Madam President, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are also very keen to put a stop to fraud in all areas in the Union. (Applause)  We still do not have any right of codetermination in agriculture, which is why our only option is to refer this report back to committee and I urge the House to vote in favour of my motion.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Electrical_ballast',1,1,'1004403.txt','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Electrical_grid',1,1,'1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Électricité_de_France',1,1,'1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1001132.txt','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1001157.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(8.6856118430392,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,2,'1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1004420.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1004477.txt','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles; we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Electricity',13,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Electricity_generation',4,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Electricity_generation',4,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Electricity_generation',4,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Electricity_generation',4,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Electric_power',1,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Electric_power_distribution',1,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Electric_power_transmission',2,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Electric_power_transmission',2,1,'1004251.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Electronics',2,1,'1004257.txt','Madam President, I would like to ask that the results of the votes be displayed on the indicator board for at least ten seconds so that in future they can be noted down. We now have a new voting device and perhaps this can be programmed to display the results for at least ten seconds.','Madam President, I would like to ask that the results of the votes be displayed on the indicator board for at least ten seconds so that in future they can be noted down. We now have a new voting device and perhaps this can be programmed to display the results for at least ten seconds.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Electronics',2,1,'1004477.txt','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles; we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Electronic_business',1,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Electronic_money',1,1,'1004131.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hans-Peter Martin is right. There are not very many of us in the Chamber. We do not know how many people are watching this in their offices and we do not know how many people would watch if we could broadcast this sitting on the Internet. If it were even possible to use video streaming to play this sitting at an agreeable time of day, then I think the hits on our web page would rocket, and it would be possible for people to analyse and monitor what goes on here more transparently and also much more effectively. What do we need? It has to be quicker; it has to be more efficient. We need search engines that direct people to the right place as quickly as possible on the basis of key words. Entering ‘Hans-Peter Martin’, ‘Paul Rübig’, ‘ e -commerce’ and ‘participants present’ ought to take you straight to this sitting. I think that our world has changed, that the networked society is actually already a reality. It has been possible to complete bureaucratic formalities, conduct business and so on electronically for a long time, but some of the necessary prerequisites are lacking. When the WTO negotiations take place in Cancun in the autumn we need to ask ourselves: to what extent has world trade been liberalised? If Hans-Peter Martin clicks on a home page now and wants to order a book from America or a certain piece of software, what barriers and what bureaucracy will he have to contend with? What duties will have to be paid and above all, what is the postal service going to do about shipping and delivery costs, which are currently completely unreasonable for small parcels? We need more competition in the postal services sector. We need secure payment systems, we need a system of damages that protects customers from fraud, and we need e -money that enables us to pay as if paying with cash. Applying the banknotes system to e -money is something that we are definitely going to need to do in the future. Finally, we also need a Europe-wide investigation into the obstacles to using these new technologies.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Elías_Larry_Ayuso',2,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Elías_Larry_Ayuso',2,1,'100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Elizabeth_Arden',1,1,'100434.txt','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Elmar_Brok',4,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Elmar_Brok',4,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Elmar_Brok',4,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Elmar_Brok',4,1,'1004628.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1001123.txt','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea; that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'10015.txt','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'10018.txt','Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport. One of the White Paper\'s proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!','Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport. One of the White Paper\'s proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'100410.txt','Mr President, please allow me to add something to what Mrs Gebhardt has said. The things she has described have made a deep impression on me, but, Mrs Gebhardt, there was just one thing missing. The reason why these violations of human rights outrage us is that a European woman is involved. We should, though, be aware that Muslim women – and not only in Dubai – are exposed to the same violations of human rights on a daily basis.','Mr President, please allow me to add something to what Mrs Gebhardt has said. The things she has described have made a deep impression on me, but, Mrs Gebhardt, there was just one thing missing. The reason why these violations of human rights outrage us is that a European woman is involved. We should, though, be aware that Muslim women – and not only in Dubai – are exposed to the same violations of human rights on a daily basis.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004267.txt','Mr President, I wish, on the record, to thank France and Belgium for the guard on the buildings having now been markedly stepped up.','Mr President, I wish, on the record, to thank France and Belgium for the guard on the buildings having now been markedly stepped up.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004268.txt','Mr President, I should like to stress that the Commissioner was quite right in what she said. The Treaty can only be revised, and rightly so, if equivalent measures are introduced. Exactly what are they then?','Mr President, I should like to stress that the Commissioner was quite right in what she said. The Treaty can only be revised, and rightly so, if equivalent measures are introduced. Exactly what are they then?'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004300.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'100437.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question of recruitment is important because it is a question of objectivity. Whether we like it or not, we need criteria for recruitment. We know that age, quotas for women and quotas for countries are often used as recruitment criteria. My question – and this qualification needs to be set out – is: are there any plans to obtain professional advice here in the future, perhaps to instruct recruitment consultants to deal with this question, so that the best possible staff can be recruited in the future?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question of recruitment is important because it is a question of objectivity. Whether we like it or not, we need criteria for recruitment. We know that age, quotas for women and quotas for countries are often used as recruitment criteria. My question – and this qualification needs to be set out – is: are there any plans to obtain professional advice here in the future, perhaps to instruct recruitment consultants to deal with this question, so that the best possible staff can be recruited in the future?'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004420.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004459.txt','Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.','Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004501.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union; both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it; we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004530.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged that railway companies are now competing with the cheap tickets offered by the airlines. How do you intend to proceed with regard to the state aid that is currently being paid to the railways? Will restrictions on the options apply here as well? In Austria, for example, 7% of the budget is spent on the railways. That amounts to around EUR 500 per citizen in subsidies to the railways, which are now competing directly with the privately-owned low-cost airlines. This means that there is unfair competition between the cheap tickets offered by the airlines and those offered by the railways. I would be very pleased if you took similar action against the railways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged that railway companies are now competing with the cheap tickets offered by the airlines. How do you intend to proceed with regard to the state aid that is currently being paid to the railways? Will restrictions on the options apply here as well? In Austria, for example, 7% of the budget is spent on the railways. That amounts to around EUR 500 per citizen in subsidies to the railways, which are now competing directly with the privately-owned low-cost airlines. This means that there is unfair competition between the cheap tickets offered by the airlines and those offered by the railways. I would be very pleased if you took similar action against the railways.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004531.txt','Mr President, during the discussions on the Karas Report I reprimanded Mr García-Margallo y Marfil for using the word ‘Vergreisung’ with reference to old people, with its suggestion that they are too old. There seems to have been an error in translation here. Our Spanish colleague used the word ‘Alterung’, which means ‘ageing’, rather than ‘Vergreisung’. Mr President, I regret my inability to speak Spanish.','Mr President, during the discussions on the Karas Report I reprimanded Mr García-Margallo y Marfil for using the word ‘Vergreisung’ with reference to old people, with its suggestion that they are too old. There seems to have been an error in translation here. Our Spanish colleague used the word ‘Alterung’, which means ‘ageing’, rather than ‘Vergreisung’. Mr President, I regret my inability to speak Spanish.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004590.txt','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.','Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'El_Señor_Presidente',22,1,'1004629.txt','Mr President, I should like to give an explanation on the Honeyball report.','Mr President, I should like to give an explanation on the Honeyball report.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Email',2,1,'100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Email',2,1,'1004183.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Embryo',2,2,'100123.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Embryo',2,1,'1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Emergence',1,1,'1001262.txt','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Emerging_technologies',3,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Emerging_technologies',3,2,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Emerging_technologies',3,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Emigration',2,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Emigration',2,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Eminent_domain',5,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Eminent_domain',5,1,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Eminent_domain',5,1,'100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Eminent_domain',5,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Eminent_domain',5,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Emissions_trading',1,1,'100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Emotion',8,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Emotion',8,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Emotion',8,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Emotion',8,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Emotion',8,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Emotion',8,1,'1004223.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations; the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Emotion',8,1,'1004447.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Emotion',8,1,'1004517.txt','Mr President, I believe that Mr Schulz’s reference to the need for preliminary investigations, as well as his serious approach to the problems, indicate that a debate on them would be premature. At the moment, I do not see that the conditions he has enumerated for a serious debate have been fulfilled, and it is for that reason that we oppose the motion. The fact is that we should not have a debate if it is to be conducted only on the basis of an emotional response to day-to-day politics, in the absence of the necessary conditions for a debate, and without us being able to complete it with a resolution.','Mr President, I believe that Mr Schulz’s reference to the need for preliminary investigations, as well as his serious approach to the problems, indicate that a debate on them would be premature. At the moment, I do not see that the conditions he has enumerated for a serious debate have been fulfilled, and it is for that reason that we oppose the motion. The fact is that we should not have a debate if it is to be conducted only on the basis of an emotional response to day-to-day politics, in the absence of the necessary conditions for a debate, and without us being able to complete it with a resolution.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Empire_of_Japan',1,1,'1001132.txt','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Employability',1,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Employee_benefit',1,1,'1001142.txt','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001104.txt','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001111.txt','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)'),(4.306453815739987,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,3,'1001115.txt','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(4.306453815739987,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,3,'1001142.txt','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001153.txt','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001166.txt','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1001177.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100118.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001193.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1001218.txt','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100124.txt','For years now, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and this is something on which opinions can differ. They certainly can when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, the popular view will be that the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, is a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at the present time, being told that they will have to work for longer in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','For years now, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and this is something on which opinions can differ. They certainly can when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, the popular view will be that the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, is a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at the present time, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001260.txt','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001262.txt','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001264.txt','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001281.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1001295.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100146.txt','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100159.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100160.txt','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10022.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film\'s success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004102.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004112.txt','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004126.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'100415.txt','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes; they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004154.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004156.txt','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(4.306453815739987,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,3,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004183.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100419.txt','One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?','One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004192.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it; that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague; and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism; that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol; and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations; and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.'),(5.741938420986649,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,4,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100421.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004238.txt','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004244.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004247.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004250.txt','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous; quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004271.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004293.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004305.txt','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004309.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet; this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004310.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(4.306453815739987,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,3,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004327.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a couple of points in view of the lateness of the hour. The first, which the speakers before me have already touched on, is that citizens\' parliaments stand for openness and therefore public accessibility, for democratic legitimacy, comprehensive controls, and lawmaking, for the exchange of opinions and competing ideas, for information and communication. Our Rules of Procedure serve to shape our procedures in such a way that we can perform our duties. Not only do we have to regulate our procedures, but we also have to acquire the competences to do justice to the demands made of us. As I see it, this may well be about the Rules of Procedure, but, in a parliamentary democracy founded on party democracy and thus also on parliamentarianism dominated by political groups, it is about the balance and interaction of work in committees, in the groups and in plenary. It is about the interaction of electoral law, the statute for MEPs, about having the same rules on incompatibility and about what we are doing here, because we may well be able to have common rules, but different presuppositions lead to different ways of doing things. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the legislative procedures and of legislative debate, not at the expense of parliamentary control and political discourse, but in a balanced fashion. I therefore agree completely with Mrs Randzio-Plath\'s view that we have to be careful that a large majority in committee does not result in diminished debate in plenary, as we will otherwise be impairing the creation of a broad majority and putting on a sham debate beforehand. (Applause)  Parliamentarians in the committees, in the groups, and in plenary must work together. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004332.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black; the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004333.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004345.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004359.txt','My second question relates to employment policy for the year 2000, which you voted on here today. The same question comes up time and time again: to what extent is the budget of the European Union examined in order to ascertain which budget lines foster employment? Some expenditure certainly fosters employment by creating new jobs and new undertakings, some budget lines secure existing jobs and some budget lines destroy jobs. Has any provision been made here for a scientific study or are there any studies which illustrate which expenditure or income we can use to make a positive impact on European employment policy?','My second question relates to employment policy for the year 2000, which you voted on here today. The same question comes up time and time again: to what extent is the budget of the European Union examined in order to ascertain which budget lines foster employment? Some expenditure certainly fosters employment by creating new jobs and new undertakings, some budget lines secure existing jobs and some budget lines destroy jobs. Has any provision been made here for a scientific study or are there any studies which illustrate which expenditure or income we can use to make a positive impact on European employment policy?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004360.txt','Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.','Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100437.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question of recruitment is important because it is a question of objectivity. Whether we like it or not, we need criteria for recruitment. We know that age, quotas for women and quotas for countries are often used as recruitment criteria. My question – and this qualification needs to be set out – is: are there any plans to obtain professional advice here in the future, perhaps to instruct recruitment consultants to deal with this question, so that the best possible staff can be recruited in the future?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question of recruitment is important because it is a question of objectivity. Whether we like it or not, we need criteria for recruitment. We know that age, quotas for women and quotas for countries are often used as recruitment criteria. My question – and this qualification needs to be set out – is: are there any plans to obtain professional advice here in the future, perhaps to instruct recruitment consultants to deal with this question, so that the best possible staff can be recruited in the future?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004378.txt','–  Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause)  As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)','–  Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause)  As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(4.306453815739987,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,3,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004403.txt','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.','Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004408.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004409.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004417.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although tunnels are among the safest parts of the European road network, accidents in tunnels often result in grave consequences, among which the psychological effects are not to be ignored. In tunnels, people feel shut in. The three major accidents in the Tauern, Mont Blanc and St Gotthard tunnels – to which the Commissioner has already referred – made the peculiar characteristics of accidents in tunnels tragically apparent. When these accidents occurred, Parliament pressed the Commission to initiate action on tunnel safety. Some time elapsed before the Commission, at the beginning of this year, submitted its proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels in the trans-European road network. Let it be emphasised from the outset that this proposal by the Commission is a good one. Our amendments were an attempt at making it even better, and I believe that we succeeded in doing so by dint of cooperation with the Commission and good dialogue with the Council, which, working in parallel with us, agreed a few days ago on the content of its Common Position, which it is – or so I hear – keen to complete tomorrow. We can expect, at second reading, to come to very quick agreement on a common directive, aiming to make European road transport safer, and in the hope that we will do so as soon as possible. In the longer term, though, we cannot be satisfied with this outcome. Our joint proposal – as I would like to call it – still has an array of cosmetic blemishes and real defects. Let me start by pointing them out. Our text focuses on one partial aspect of the issue of tunnel safety. In essence, we are demanding high standards in building work and elsewhere, but it is equally important to make improvements to the way in which people use tunnels. There needs to be better general training of drivers, and there is a particular need for better-trained drivers of passenger and freight vehicles. Nor can we be content with improving the safety of tunnels that are part of the TENs, while taking no account of the other road tunnels. We must act as quickly as possible to incorporate into our system the candidate countries and the others that intend to join us, and, as there is more to Europe than the EU, countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others as well. The Commission has held out to us the prospect of certain things being done in response to these points. To some extent, though, it is the jurisdiction situation that prevents us from using legislation to work towards what we need, so, together, we have a certain amount of persuading to do. The candidate countries and those Europeans who are not yet in the EU have already, this time round, participated very actively in our work, and we hope they will continue to do so. I will take it as read that our proposal’s good points largely speak for themselves, but there are a number of details to which I would nevertheless like to give special mention. We tried very hard to lay down clear lines of responsibility. We worked hard to achieve flexibility, so that the users of tunnels can enjoy a properly high level of safety without delay, particularly where tunnels are old and in need of repair. We also attached particular importance to the practicability of what we were proposing in very many individual cases, of which the particular problems of tunnels in cities may be taken as representative. One issue whose importance has been particularly stressed to me back home has to do with the safety of disabled people. I hope that we have come to the right conclusion as to what they need, and we have made constructive efforts to ensure that they too, in the event of a calamity, can expect a minimum standard of safety. My final task as rapporteur is a thankful one. I would like to thank the many people who have helped to achieve this outcome in which we all share: the Commission and its staff; the various partners in dialogue from the Member States, but also – even though I am repeating myself – from Switzerland and Norway, and the Members of all the groups in this House and their assistants. Last but not least, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the member of the Committee secretariat, Mr Haug, for his many hours of dedicated work. I hope that, at second reading, he will support us as efficiently as he has done to date, and that things will work together so that we have, as soon as possible, better laws on safety in European tunnels. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004424.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004432.txt','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended; to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous; it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes; we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need; they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004439.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the new external borders are to be set wider, with consequent migratory pressures, leads me to welcome your setting as a priority the reinforcement of the area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome your choice of a multidisciplinary approach to deal with this, taking in the securing of the external borders and accelerated asylum procedures, along with measures to deal with immigration, steering the legal and combating the illegal. I would, though, like to make a number of specific comments, starting with one on the management of the external borders. If we want to have a whole range of projects to manage the external borders in new ways, with very high standards enforced everywhere, then coordination is needed. The Commission and the Council have now proposed the establishment of a new agency, but the question arises of where it is to be located. I would not be in favour of our again devolving competences upon an agency over which we have no control; I would instead prefer it if a coordinating unit – which might as well be called an agency – were to be set up within the Commission, where it could function efficiently. I would ask you, when evaluating the options, to give consideration to this one. My second comment has to do with repatriation policy. If you want to put together credible policies on asylum and legal immigration, you have to combat illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum, and so you need a common repatriation policy as well. I would encourage you, then, in future, to conclude repatriation agreements not only with states like Macao, but also, in fact, with the states from which we can expect the most migrants. That is what we expect, and we will support you in doing this. We will also help you to work towards the provision of information at the grass roots in these countries, which is the best way of preventing the trafficking in human beings. For my final point, I ask you to exert more pressure on the Member States to get them, at last, to implement the directives on refugee status and asylum procedures, so that we can, once and for all, ensure that decisions are taken and procedures completed speedily, and that refugees get help without delay. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this directive is, without doubt, the most important directive for the small and family-run businesses of Europe. A good day’s work deserves a good day’s pay. But some have had to wait for it longer than others. The stronger the partner, the more power he has to make a business wait. Here, for the first time, we have a regulation which ensures that the company’s liquidity is secured once the service has been provided, and within a foreseeable period of time. I am delighted that we are debating today in the small circle, because you can see that this directive is totally uncontested and that the European Parliament stands fully behind this directive. We know that some 450,000 jobs are lost every year as the result of late payments. When we talk about job security and job creation, then we have a very important and crucial directive here which helps us to secure 450,000 jobs a year in Europe. That deserves the headlines in the press but, as you know, the fight for jobs is already taken for granted. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is making such an important contribution to this. This initiative was intensively promoted to start with by Marianne Thyssen, Mr Folias and Mr Murphy and we are proud of such an excellent result in the House. Payment within 30 days, precautions to ensure that payments are actually made and that the company receives the money within 90 days. It is a sensational result. Congratulations! I am proud to be a member of this Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this directive is, without doubt, the most important directive for the small and family-run businesses of Europe. A good day’s work deserves a good day’s pay. But some have had to wait for it longer than others. The stronger the partner, the more power he has to make a business wait. Here, for the first time, we have a regulation which ensures that the company’s liquidity is secured once the service has been provided, and within a foreseeable period of time. I am delighted that we are debating today in the small circle, because you can see that this directive is totally uncontested and that the European Parliament stands fully behind this directive. We know that some 450,000 jobs are lost every year as the result of late payments. When we talk about job security and job creation, then we have a very important and crucial directive here which helps us to secure 450,000 jobs a year in Europe. That deserves the headlines in the press but, as you know, the fight for jobs is already taken for granted. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is making such an important contribution to this. This initiative was intensively promoted to start with by Marianne Thyssen, Mr Folias and Mr Murphy and we are proud of such an excellent result in the House. Payment within 30 days, precautions to ensure that payments are actually made and that the company receives the money within 90 days. It is a sensational result. Congratulations! I am proud to be a member of this Parliament.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004458.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004462.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people. That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the ageing workforce. Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: \"But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people\". That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the \"ageing workforce\". Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years; today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004472.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004474.txt','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004483.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004485.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10045.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away; the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004500.txt','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004514.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause)  What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo  instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause)  What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all; see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo ; instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(4.306453815739987,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,3,'1004527.txt','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(4.306453815739987,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,3,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100456.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid; it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004566.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004579.txt','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004594.txt','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004596.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'10046.txt','Mr President, perhaps something was lost in translation. My question was: are there any plans to use external professional support or recruitment advisors so as to ensure that the best possible staff are recruited?','Mr President, perhaps something was lost in translation. My question was: are there any plans to use external professional support or recruitment advisors so as to ensure that the best possible staff are recruited?');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004602.txt','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004610.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004612.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are four points I would like to address. The first is that the insurance business is based on trust. Trust has a dual basis: trust in the product on the one hand, and on the other, trust in the other party\'s sales personnel and in their way of doing business. It needs, then, to be said today that the absolute majority of all sales personnel and brokers do their work in a proper way; otherwise the insurance business would not be flourishing and justifying the trust placed in it by its customers. Secondly, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this report. Thirdly, many States\' laws on insurance and banking already impose strict duties of consultation and information, which are binding also on brokers. Insurers and credit institutions are subject to supervision and obligatory registration and to clear regulations on policy. Quite independently of that, I share the directive\'s desire to guarantee the creation of a high professional standard for insurance brokers, to establish a single register for cross-frontier operations and to secure a high level of protection for insurance enterprises. Over and above what has already been said, Mr Radwan and I have tabled three amendments – Nos 57, 58, and 59 – in which we intend, firstly, to have it left to the Member States to decide whether to exempt insurance brokers dealing in commercial risks from the requirements of the directive; secondly, to have the intermediary activity end with the conclusion of the contract, as is customary; and thirdly, to make a clearer distinction between those who work as insurance brokers as their main occupation and those for whom this activity is incidental to another.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004625.txt','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas; how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.'),(2.8709692104933247,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,2,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'1004634.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.'),(4.306453815739987,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,3,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(1.4354846052466623,1.4354846052466623,1000,'Employment',238,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Endemic_(epidemiology)',1,1,'100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'End_of_the_Road',1,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1001102.txt','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages; in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1001203.txt','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004134.txt','Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.','Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them; for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004242.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions; all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004245.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner you have done an excellent piece of work.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner; you have done an excellent piece of work.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004427.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to say that Mr Hans-Peter Martin has announced the withdrawal of the report on lobbying in industry because of his own personal interest. This is not something that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes it has been done contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and of the coordinator. I just wanted to have it recorded in the minutes of the House that he personally withdrew this report contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and contrary to the statement that he made.','Mr President, I just wanted to say that Mr Hans-Peter Martin has announced the withdrawal of the report on lobbying in industry because of his own personal interest. This is not something that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes; it has been done contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and of the coordinator. I just wanted to have it recorded in the minutes of the House that he personally withdrew this report contrary to the intentions of the relevant committee and contrary to the statement that he made.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004454.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004579.txt','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.'),(3.649658740946655,3.649658740946655,1000,'Energy',26,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Energy_conservation',5,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Energy_conservation',5,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Energy_conservation',5,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Energy_conservation',5,2,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Energy_conservation',5,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Energy_crop',1,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,2,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!'),(8.845697258380273,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,2,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'1001303.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'1004251.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'1004483.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Energy_development',12,1,'1004579.txt','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Energy_economics',1,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Energy_industry',3,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Energy_industry',3,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Energy_industry',3,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Energy_intensity',1,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Energy_market',2,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Energy_market',2,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Energy_policy',1,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union',4,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union',4,1,'1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union',4,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union',4,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1001273.txt','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1004234.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle; I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1004251.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1004408.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Energy_security',11,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Energy_supply',1,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Enforcement_Directive',1,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Engineering',5,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Engineering',5,1,'1004376.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know to which technical norms and standards the Commission actually refers when deciding which blocks are dangerous and have to be closed down.','Mr President, Commissioner, I would be interested to know to which technical norms and standards the Commission actually refers when deciding which blocks are dangerous and have to be closed down.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Engineering',5,1,'1004405.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Engineering',5,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Engineering',5,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'English_language',5,1,'100243.txt','Mr President, I have just two comments to make. Firstly, the German translation of recital A is incorrect, so please use the English version here. A further point is this: in our calls to the Commission, a mistake has crept in to paragraph 2. I would ask you to delete the following words, as they make no sense in legal terms. After the words ‘WIPO Treaty’, the following four words – ‘on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT)’ must be deleted. It is incorrect. ‘WIPO Treaty’ should stand, and the following four words plus the parentheses must be deleted.','Mr President, I have just two comments to make. Firstly, the German translation of recital A is incorrect, so please use the English version here. A further point is this: in our calls to the Commission, a mistake has crept in to paragraph 2. I would ask you to delete the following words, as they make no sense in legal terms. After the words ‘WIPO Treaty’, the following four words – ‘on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT)’ must be deleted. It is incorrect. ‘WIPO Treaty’ should stand, and the following four words plus the parentheses must be deleted.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'English_language',5,1,'100246.txt','Madam President, I would just like to say that here too the German version is incorrect. We are sticking with the English version, in which the words “his or her” have been added.','Madam President, I would just like to say that here too the German version is incorrect. We are sticking with the English version, in which the words “his or her” have been added.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'English_language',5,1,'100272.txt','Mr President, I too would like to say, in relation to Amendment No 53, that the English version is the valid text. ‘Parasitic copies’ is therefore the correct wording.','Mr President, I too would like to say, in relation to Amendment No 53, that the English version is the valid text. ‘Parasitic copies’ is therefore the correct wording.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'English_language',5,1,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'English_language',5,1,'1004613.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.','Madam President, Commissioner, it is late, and I shall be brief. I am delighted with this report. My thanks to the Commissioner for what she has just said. I am delighted that my proposed amendments were accepted by everyone in the Committee on the Environment. My thanks also to my friend Mr Nisticò, even if there is one question we disagree on. I think it is morally reprehensible to take primates from the wild. If we feel we cannot do without them, then we must breed them. I come from a country where we would no longer dare keep such animals in a zoo, not even the Schönbrunner Zoo, the oldest and most beautiful zoo in the world. The last time a pharmaceutical company dared to bring two chimpanzees to Austria from Africa, they were rescued. They now live, much beloved by the public, as Liesl and Hiasl in an animal rescue centre in Vienna. As one famous English legal practitioner once said, you do not ask yourself, can animals think, can animals talk? No, you ask yourself, can they suffer? And that they certainly can.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'English_relative_clauses',6,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'English_relative_clauses',6,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'English_relative_clauses',6,1,'1004450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to highlight two positive things. The first is the working document presented by the Commission, which was the starting point for the report. It is a sound basis for instituting a debate which should culminate at some point in a legal act setting out common standards for an asylum procedure. The second is the report, which I particularly wish to highlight, because the rapporteur really has succeeded in finding a broad consensus right across the political divide on a very delicate matter. That is no easy task and we have all experienced quite the opposite here, which is why this is an excellent piece of work. I should like to pick up on three points which I think are particularly important and which I would ask the Commission to take into consideration. The first is the question of how to divide the burden and has already been addressed. We must not concentrate on just one aspect; we need to remain receptive to a distribution in terms of people. If you look at refugee movements, you will see that they always affect the same countries. Austria, for example, where I come from, is always near the top of the list when it comes to admitting temporary refugees or asylum seekers. It is on a par with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands. Others have a much lighter burden to bear and greater solidarity between the Member States is needed here. I should like to highlight the question of shortening and simplifying the qualification procedures without – and that is the crux of the matter – compromising careful examination. It is an important point, because asylum seekers are entitled to a fast decision and a fast answer on their future status. The third point is that which gives legal certainty and which, when implemented, helps to ensure that identical decisions are taken in all Member States. It is the point which requires us to keep up-to-date lists of safe third countries and countries of origin. It will help enormously if we manage to draw up these lists. It attracted a broad consensus but I fear that this consensus will not perhaps hold up if all the amendments proposed by the Greens are included. They want much that is positive, but they want a lot that is total, as Mrs Merkel once remarked. If, for example, they want to implement the total extension of the definition of refugee or total access for asylum seekers to the job market or work to reverse the burden of proof, then the consensus achieved with their vote in committee will be jeopardised. I call on them to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments so that the broad consensus can be maintained.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'English_relative_clauses',6,1,'1004570.txt','Mr President, may I make a request? I would like an investigation into whether, during the vote on the van Hulten report, it was noted by Mr Ferber and recorded in the Minutes, that a Member was not present, which that Member subsequently confirmed. Is he entitled to call for a subsequent correction of the vote, which did not take place in the Chamber, which the Minutes indicate that he did?','Mr President, may I make a request? I would like an investigation into whether, during the vote on the van Hulten report, it was noted by Mr Ferber and recorded in the Minutes, that a Member was not present, which that Member subsequently confirmed. Is he entitled to call for a subsequent correction of the vote, which did not take place in the Chamber, which the Minutes indicate that he did?'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'English_relative_clauses',6,1,'100458.txt','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'English_relative_clauses',6,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Enhanced_9-1-1',1,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Enhanced_cooperation',1,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1001108.txt','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,2,'1001155.txt','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,2,'1001180.txt','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1001218.txt','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!'),(9.109662804174738,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,3,'1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1001296.txt','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'100135.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'100216.txt','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004139.txt','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is; this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004155.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,2,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,2,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(9.109662804174738,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,3,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,2,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004251.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(9.109662804174738,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,3,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(9.109662804174738,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,3,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004386.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.'),(12.146217072232984,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,4,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004432.txt','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended; to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous; it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes; we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need; they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,2,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(6.073108536116492,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,2,'1004454.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(9.109662804174738,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,3,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(12.146217072232984,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,4,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'100457.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(3.036554268058246,3.036554268058246,1000,'Enlargement_of_the_European_Union',48,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Entity',1,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1004332.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black; the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1004409.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'1004625.txt','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas; how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Entrepreneurship',12,1,'100463.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production; connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield; moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001139.txt','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'10018.txt','Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport. One of the White Paper\'s proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!','Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport. One of the White Paper\'s proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004106.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(5.991464547107982,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,2,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004247.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004264.txt','Mr President, the future of this European Union of ours is dependent to a crucial degree on its acceptance by the public, and this is something we must always bear in mind when proposing regulatory schemes. That is why I advocated leaving the regulation of travel restrictions to the Member States. Appropriate measures relating to restrictions at weekends or on public holidays should really be taken by the Member States, as it is these that are best suited to responding to special circumstances. The Member States should generally be allowed to impose limitations from the outset for environmental and safety reasons, and it is imperative that geographical considerations be taken into account. What should, though, be seen in a positive light, is the reference to the special case represented by the transportation of easily perishable foodstuffs such as milk, fruit or vegetables.','Mr President, the future of this European Union of ours is dependent to a crucial degree on its acceptance by the public, and this is something we must always bear in mind when proposing regulatory schemes. That is why I advocated leaving the regulation of travel restrictions to the Member States. Appropriate measures relating to restrictions at weekends or on public holidays should really be taken by the Member States, as it is these that are best suited to responding to special circumstances. The Member States should generally be allowed to impose limitations from the outset for environmental and safety reasons, and it is imperative that geographical considerations be taken into account. What should, though, be seen in a positive light, is the reference to the special case represented by the transportation of easily perishable foodstuffs such as milk, fruit or vegetables.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100436.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15 we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15; we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004413.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004435.txt','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.','Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.'),(5.991464547107982,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,2,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'10045.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away; the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)'),(5.991464547107982,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,2,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004566.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'100457.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004572.txt','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term; support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways; such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(2.995732273553991,2.995732273553991,1000,'Environmentalism',50,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Environmental_degradation',2,1,'100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Environmental_degradation',2,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Environmental_economics',3,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Environmental_economics',3,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Environmental_economics',3,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Environmental_health',1,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Environmental_impact_assessment',3,1,'100218.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Environmental_impact_assessment',3,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Environmental_impact_assessment',3,1,'1004155.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Environmental_law',4,1,'100232.txt','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Environmental_law',4,1,'1004242.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions; all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Environmental_law',4,1,'1004335.txt','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Environmental_law',4,1,'1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Environmental_liability_directive',2,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Environmental_liability_directive',2,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Environmental_movement',2,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Environmental_movement',2,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Environmental_policy',5,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Environmental_policy',5,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Environmental_policy',5,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Environmental_policy',5,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Environmental_policy',5,1,'1004396.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Environmental_policy_of_the_European_Union',1,1,'1004335.txt','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!','Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Environmental_protection',6,1,'1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Environmental_protection',6,1,'100192.txt','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Environmental_protection',6,1,'100194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Environmental_protection',6,1,'1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Environmental_protection',6,2,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Environmental_protection',6,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'En_passant',1,1,'1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Epidemic',1,1,'1004309.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet; this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Epistemology',5,1,'1001192.txt','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Epistemology',5,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Epistemology',5,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Epistemology',5,1,'1004365.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Epistemology',5,1,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Epithet',1,1,'1001186.txt','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Epizootic',2,1,'1004318.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.'),(18.643824295266576,6.214608098422191,1000,'Epizootic',2,3,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Equality_before_the_law',1,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1001113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1001246.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1001288.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'10015.txt','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'10027.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004126.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004134.txt','Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.','Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them; for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004221.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,2,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004305.txt','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004346.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition.  It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,2,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'100447.txt','Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)','Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(6.822495435029314,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,2,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004529.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(3.411247717514657,3.411247717514657,1000,'Equal_opportunity',33,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,1,'1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,2,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,1,'1004129.txt','Mr President, the UMTS licences were auctioned for very large sums. What effect will that have on digital television licences? I believe that new jobs have been created precisely by these initiatives, which also involve very substantial investments. What view do you take of the development of risk capital in this field?','Mr President, the UMTS licences were auctioned for very large sums. What effect will that have on digital television licences? I believe that new jobs have been created precisely by these initiatives, which also involve very substantial investments. What view do you take of the development of risk capital in this field?'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,1,'1004263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to ask the Commissioner what he will do to get the effects of Basle II to promote tourism enterprises? The present situation is that tourism enterprises do not, as a rule, have equity capital, are financed in the long term, and rating is too expensive for them. In the Budget guidelines, Parliament proposed the drawing up of an action plan, quite simply in order to avoid mass bankruptcies and a great increase in unemployment in this sector.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,2,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,1,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,2,'1004448.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?'),(13.529580018548302,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,3,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Equity_(finance)',11,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Erasmus_Mundus',1,1,'10027.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Erhard_Busek',1,1,'1004634.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Erkki_Liikanen',1,1,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Erosion',3,1,'1001214.txt','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences; the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Erosion',3,1,'1001253.txt','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Erosion',3,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Erratum',1,1,'1004479.txt','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Errikos_Belies',1,1,'1004458.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Escape_clause',1,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Escape_Plan_(film)',1,1,'100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Espionage',1,1,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Essen',4,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Essen',4,1,'1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Essen',4,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Essen',4,1,'1004337.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Essence',2,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Essence',2,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'1001232.txt','Mr President, I voted against the report before us because it does not live up to the expectations created by the title. The main focus is on religious fundamentalism, with other forms of fundamentalism only being given a brief mention. Even if religious fundamentalism is the most significant form and stands out from other forms, it is nevertheless essential to recognise all forms of fundamentalism if a meaningful debate is to take place. The threats posed by fundamentalism are growing in a way that the events of 11 September suggest involve an enormous contempt for humanity. However, to do justice to the situation we cannot limit ourselves to religious aspects alone. Just as people obsessed with a fundamental order are to be found in all walks of life, this way of thinking is also prevalent throughout society. The logical consequence of recognising this can therefore only be that we should examine this whole area and not concentrate on just one form of this phenomenon, even if it is the form with the most adherents.','Mr President, I voted against the report before us because it does not live up to the expectations created by the title. The main focus is on religious fundamentalism, with other forms of fundamentalism only being given a brief mention. Even if religious fundamentalism is the most significant form and stands out from other forms, it is nevertheless essential to recognise all forms of fundamentalism if a meaningful debate is to take place. The threats posed by fundamentalism are growing in a way that the events of 11 September suggest involve an enormous contempt for humanity. However, to do justice to the situation we cannot limit ourselves to religious aspects alone. Just as people obsessed with a fundamental order are to be found in all walks of life, this way of thinking is also prevalent throughout society. The logical consequence of recognising this can therefore only be that we should examine this whole area and not concentrate on just one form of this phenomenon, even if it is the form with the most adherents.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'10013.txt','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'1004371.txt','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Essentialism',10,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ethical_egoism',1,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,2,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,2,'100117.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,2,'1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,1,'1001273.txt','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,1,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,1,'1004117.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I found out today that France has banned rugby. That is fine by me. However, my question is this: do you think that boxing is really a sport which should be encouraged, and do you think that boxing is especially conducive to the morals and ethical values of young people?','Mr President, Commissioner, I found out today that France has banned rugby. That is fine by me. However, my question is this: do you think that boxing is really a sport which should be encouraged, and do you think that boxing is especially conducive to the morals and ethical values of young people?'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,1,'100412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Ethics',10,1,'1004630.txt','Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.','Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Ethnic_cleansing',2,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Ethnic_cleansing',2,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_group',8,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_group',8,1,'1001263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_group',8,1,'100181.txt','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_group',8,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_group',8,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_group',8,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_group',8,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_group',8,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_groups_in_Europe',8,1,'1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_groups_in_Europe',8,1,'1001184.txt','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_groups_in_Europe',8,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_groups_in_Europe',8,1,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_groups_in_Europe',8,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_groups_in_Europe',8,1,'1004243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, recently, there are more and more reports of Europeans disappearing between Algeria and Tunisia. The current figures are four Swiss, eight Austrians, one Dutch, one Swede and fifteen Germans. Are you aware of these incidents, and is the Council considering taking joint action to free or locate these fellow citizens?'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_groups_in_Europe',8,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Ethnic_groups_in_Europe',8,1,'1004507.txt','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world one billion are hungry and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.','Mr President, the world economy is now facing problems similar to those it faced before the beginning of the Uruguay Round 13 years ago. We are confronted with generally slackening growth, and that in a world with an exploding population There are six billion people in the world; one billion are hungry; and more than 30 million people die of starvation each year, including – horrifically – many children. And we, the rich of this world, have a duty to try to reduce this misery and hunger. I am firmly convinced that a further liberalisation and expansion of trade in the framework provided by the WTO will contribute to promoting growth and employment in the developing countries as well. As general rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the WTO negotiations, I should particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for his clear words on the subject of trade and the environment. It was not straightforward. But if, by the end of tomorrow, Parliament has accepted the Schwaiger Report, then we shall have endorsed his words and decided that account must be taken of environmental protection as a condition for all areas of world trade; not a wishy-washy may or ought to be, but must be. I believe we are heading for very exciting negotiations indeed and, as has been said very often today, we Europeans most certainly have an historic role to play in these.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Etymology',1,1,'1004629.txt','Mr President, I should like to give an explanation on the Honeyball report.','Mr President, I should like to give an explanation on the Honeyball report.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Etymology_of_electricity',1,1,'1004423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Eugenics',1,1,'100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Euphoria',1,1,'1004392.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Eurasian_Economic_Union',1,1,'1001170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Euratom_Treaty',3,1,'1001116.txt','Mr President, I view the expiry of the Euratom Treaty as an opportunity for Europe to phase out nuclear energy. Yet today\'s vote on the Euratom programme has endorsed follow-up funding for nuclear research. This is set out in Amendment No 12, for example, which provides funding for research into the safety of existing reactors (with priority for reactors in the candidate countries), as well as reactors of the new generation. In other words, it safeguards future nuclear power plants. Yet research should be targeting non-nuclear energies, especially renewable energies, in order to make a contribution to the progressive phasing-out of nuclear energy in Europe. This is why we rejected not only Amendment No 12 but also the entire Euratom programme in today\'s vote.','Mr President, I view the expiry of the Euratom Treaty as an opportunity for Europe to phase out nuclear energy. Yet today\'s vote on the Euratom programme has endorsed follow-up funding for nuclear research. This is set out in Amendment No 12, for example, which provides funding for research into the safety of existing reactors (with priority for reactors in the candidate countries), as well as reactors of the new generation. In other words, it safeguards future nuclear power plants. Yet research should be targeting non-nuclear energies, especially renewable energies, in order to make a contribution to the progressive phasing-out of nuclear energy in Europe. This is why we rejected not only Amendment No 12 but also the entire Euratom programme in today\'s vote.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Euratom_Treaty',3,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Euratom_Treaty',3,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'100117.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1001228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1001243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'10014.txt','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'100159.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'100161.txt','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'100177.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004112.txt','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004187.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004316.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004391.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that in Macedonia\'s case it is particularly important to consider how the support that we provide can most effectively bring stability to this region. Small and medium-sized enterprises obviously play a pivotal role here. That is why I would be interested to know whether within this support programme that you mentioned, which will provide EUR 135 million for the period from 2000 to 2004, funds are also available to promote small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that in Macedonia\'s case it is particularly important to consider how the support that we provide can most effectively bring stability to this region. Small and medium-sized enterprises obviously play a pivotal role here. That is why I would be interested to know whether within this support programme that you mentioned, which will provide EUR 135 million for the period from 2000 to 2004, funds are also available to promote small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004407.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?','Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I think that the infrastructure in this area in particular represents a very important opportunity for the future. We are discussing reconstruction in this area. We are talking about EUR 500 million or a billion, an enormous amount of money, which needs to be invested. What will you focus on? On restoring the railways, the roads, air traffic, energy, telecommunications? Does the Commission have a plan, if agreement is reached, on where investments should focus here?'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004454.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on Monday this week, we debated category 3 very intensively under the heading of internal policies, and one area which is of particular concern to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course intelligent energies. In category 3, more than EUR 500 million is now newly available. Do you think that in this area, we could make the development of these intelligent energy technologies a particular priority – also in the ten new accession countries, which have today been confirmed by Parliament? In other words, do you think we could step up these initiatives in this area too?'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004485.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur and all Members and staff of this House who have made it possible for this report on the establishment of the Solidarity Fund to be adopted so quickly. As certain Members of this House have already pointed out, the distribution of resources for the affected regions is dependent on it, and that not only in the Member States, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is this prompt action that helps the EU to be taken seriously as a Union for its citizens, and to show that the same EU is capable of responding with efficiency and speed to the emergency situations in which they find themselves. Mr Karas has already referred to the fact that I too come from one of the regions affected, and I can assure you that people are really grateful for this solidarity. As well as the great damage sustained by roads, bridges, railway infrastructure and public and private buildings, over 20 000 hectares of farmland were devastated. Let me repeat that the damage in Austria amounts to something in the order of EUR 6 to 7 billion. The new Solidarity Fund is intended to be – indeed, it must be – a powerful instrument in an emergency and, for that reason, one whose use is targeted. I would like to give my wholehearted support to the rapporteur\'s proposals, and thus to those of the Committee on the Regions, as regards fixing the threshold at EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. The threshold of EUR 3 billion demanded by the Council strikes me as too high. It is also right to require that the financial resources be drawn on within two years. The two-month deadline cannot but be supported, as, if aid is to be given quickly, applications for it must be made with equal speed. Demands continue to be made on the Member States, which cannot evade their responsibilities for preventive measures or long-term reconstruction work, for which we will yet need much in the way of resources. My especially warm thanks are due to the Commission for coming up with proposals so fast, and especially for the Commissioners having been on the spot with the President of the Commission, and for these funds of EUR 1 billion being available. I really do hope that we will vote in favour of this report tomorrow and thus enable the funds to get to the victims as soon as possible. Parliament and the Commission will then have done their duty, and it is my very real hope that the Council will pass the necessary resolutions in October, so that the money will at last reach the victims. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004530.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged that railway companies are now competing with the cheap tickets offered by the airlines. How do you intend to proceed with regard to the state aid that is currently being paid to the railways? Will restrictions on the options apply here as well? In Austria, for example, 7% of the budget is spent on the railways. That amounts to around EUR 500 per citizen in subsidies to the railways, which are now competing directly with the privately-owned low-cost airlines. This means that there is unfair competition between the cheap tickets offered by the airlines and those offered by the railways. I would be very pleased if you took similar action against the railways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged that railway companies are now competing with the cheap tickets offered by the airlines. How do you intend to proceed with regard to the state aid that is currently being paid to the railways? Will restrictions on the options apply here as well? In Austria, for example, 7% of the budget is spent on the railways. That amounts to around EUR 500 per citizen in subsidies to the railways, which are now competing directly with the privately-owned low-cost airlines. This means that there is unfair competition between the cheap tickets offered by the airlines and those offered by the railways. I would be very pleased if you took similar action against the railways.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Euro',27,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Eurocentrism',1,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Eurochambres',1,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Eurocommerce',1,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Eurocontrol',2,1,'1004113.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, there has hardly ever been such a topical report as this one. Just in time before the summer break, when everyone goes on holiday and more and more people also travel by plane, today Parliament is considering questions of air traffic. A tiresome subject, as we all know, and as every air traveller finds out. We all suffer from delays that often last hours. It has now become a daily scene at airports to see every passage-way overcrowded with bored, irritable or even aggressive passengers. It happens to us MEPs very frequently, as it does to much of the population during the holidays. Let me remind you of another aspect. When aircraft cannot land on time, that not only creates a great many personal difficulties for people on business trips who have to keep to their schedules but also produces extra costs and environmental pollution. So I welcome the fact that the Commission has submitted a report on these important subjects and that a High Level Group was set up to consider the problems of establishing a single European sky. I hope we will have the final results of its inquiries before us in good time in the autumn so that we can then really move on to taking concrete measures jointly with the Commission. The safety aspect comes top of the list for all passengers, but especially for frequent fliers. Safety standards must on no account be endangered. That is why we need better airspace control and protection. Eurocontrol must satisfy all these safety requirements, but that means we also have to create the necessary framework conditions.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, there has hardly ever been such a topical report as this one. Just in time before the summer break, when everyone goes on holiday and more and more people also travel by plane, today Parliament is considering questions of air traffic. A tiresome subject, as we all know, and as every air traveller finds out. We all suffer from delays that often last hours. It has now become a daily scene at airports to see every passage-way overcrowded with bored, irritable or even aggressive passengers. It happens to us MEPs very frequently, as it does to much of the population during the holidays. Let me remind you of another aspect. When aircraft cannot land on time, that not only creates a great many personal difficulties for people on business trips who have to keep to their schedules but also produces extra costs and environmental pollution. So I welcome the fact that the Commission has submitted a report on these important subjects and that a High Level Group was set up to consider the problems of establishing a single European sky. I hope we will have the final results of its inquiries before us in good time in the autumn so that we can then really move on to taking concrete measures jointly with the Commission. The safety aspect comes top of the list for all passengers, but especially for frequent fliers. Safety standards must on no account be endangered. That is why we need better airspace control and protection. Eurocontrol must satisfy all these safety requirements, but that means we also have to create the necessary framework conditions.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Eurocontrol',2,1,'1004521.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Eurocorps',2,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Eurocorps',2,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1001150.txt','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1001152.txt','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004173.txt','Madam President, we discussed Mr Schulz’s proposal this morning and voted on it. For good reasons there was a clear majority in favour of taking the vote today. Otherwise we would have not had Eurodac by the beginning of next year but the next debates would have been held sometime during next year and Eurodac would maybe have come a year later. That would be irresponsible and there was therefore a clear decision by the Parliament to take the vote today. (Applause)','Madam President, we discussed Mr Schulz’s proposal this morning and voted on it. For good reasons there was a clear majority in favour of taking the vote today. Otherwise we would have not had Eurodac by the beginning of next year but the next debates would have been held sometime during next year and Eurodac would maybe have come a year later. That would be irresponsible and there was therefore a clear decision by the Parliament to take the vote today. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004177.txt','Mr President, esteemed gentlemen from Portugal, especially the Council representatives, you face great expectations on our part. I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment. I refer to Eurodac. You will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system, as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications, in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and, above all, in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure. We voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument, together with an implementation committee, which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be. We were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality. Even in Tampere, we were of the opinion that Eurodac was becoming a reality. However, the Council then took another direction at the very next summit in December and took a huge step backwards by deciding what we had absolutely rejected, i.e. that the Council should continue to be responsible for implementation, that the regulatory committee would be attached to the Council and that, where possible, Gibraltar would still be used to exert pressure. This is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see. My urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures. If you tell us today how you wish to proceed, you will be doing us a great service. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed gentlemen from Portugal, especially the Council representatives, you face great expectations on our part. I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment. I refer to Eurodac. You will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system, as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications, in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and, above all, in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure. We voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument, together with an implementation committee, which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be. We were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality. Even in Tampere, we were of the opinion that Eurodac was becoming a reality. However, the Council then took another direction at the very next summit in December and took a huge step backwards by deciding what we had absolutely rejected, i.e. that the Council should continue to be responsible for implementation, that the regulatory committee would be attached to the Council and that, where possible, Gibraltar would still be used to exert pressure. This is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see. My urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures. If you tell us today how you wish to proceed, you will be doing us a great service. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004297.txt','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004367.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004387.txt','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004471.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004535.txt','Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.','Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system; on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community; on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal; we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004559.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'Eurodac',17,1,'1004624.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Eurojust',2,1,'1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Eurojust',2,1,'1004192.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it; that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague; and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism; that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol; and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations; and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001100.txt','The proposals for a second railway package set in motion important initiatives towards strengthening Europe\'s railway system. Opening rail freight services within Member States, and accelerating the process of opening up the international ones, represent a significant step towards deregulating the railway sector. The objectives set by the White Paper for European transport policy up to 2010, as well as the constantly increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads, mean that absolute priority must be accorded to transferring goods traffic from road to rail. Diverting the flow of European freight traffic can succeed in the long term only if railways are high-performing and competitive. The planned harmonisation of the European railway network is therefore to be welcomed, provided that a maximum of safety in rail travel can be guaranteed.','The proposals for a second railway package set in motion important initiatives towards strengthening Europe\'s railway system. Opening rail freight services within Member States, and accelerating the process of opening up the international ones, represent a significant step towards deregulating the railway sector. The objectives set by the White Paper for European transport policy up to 2010, as well as the constantly increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads, mean that absolute priority must be accorded to transferring goods traffic from road to rail. Diverting the flow of European freight traffic can succeed in the long term only if railways are high-performing and competitive. The planned harmonisation of the European railway network is therefore to be welcomed, provided that a maximum of safety in rail travel can be guaranteed.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001103.txt','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001104.txt','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001106.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001111.txt','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001115.txt','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001116.txt','Mr President, I view the expiry of the Euratom Treaty as an opportunity for Europe to phase out nuclear energy. Yet today\'s vote on the Euratom programme has endorsed follow-up funding for nuclear research. This is set out in Amendment No 12, for example, which provides funding for research into the safety of existing reactors (with priority for reactors in the candidate countries), as well as reactors of the new generation. In other words, it safeguards future nuclear power plants. Yet research should be targeting non-nuclear energies, especially renewable energies, in order to make a contribution to the progressive phasing-out of nuclear energy in Europe. This is why we rejected not only Amendment No 12 but also the entire Euratom programme in today\'s vote.','Mr President, I view the expiry of the Euratom Treaty as an opportunity for Europe to phase out nuclear energy. Yet today\'s vote on the Euratom programme has endorsed follow-up funding for nuclear research. This is set out in Amendment No 12, for example, which provides funding for research into the safety of existing reactors (with priority for reactors in the candidate countries), as well as reactors of the new generation. In other words, it safeguards future nuclear power plants. Yet research should be targeting non-nuclear energies, especially renewable energies, in order to make a contribution to the progressive phasing-out of nuclear energy in Europe. This is why we rejected not only Amendment No 12 but also the entire Euratom programme in today\'s vote.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001121.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001125.txt','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001127.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade; in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001131.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001135.txt','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001153.txt','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001160.txt','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001169.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 95% of live animal transports are by road and we are all familiar with the images of tormented animals confined in a very narrow space for days on end as they are transported across Europe and beyond. There can be no doubt that something needs to be done. I support the proposals made in this report that will help to improve standards in live animal transports, such as setting minimum standards for the vehicles used, but above all the introduction of additional supervisory measures, because however good the rules may be, they will not work if there are no controls. There are already plenty of rules, but enforcement and controls are lacking. Amendment No 2, of which I am a co-signatory, is designed to clarify the term ‘journey’ in order to prevent the maximum duration of transport being exceeded by the back door, so to speak. Transport times must be reduced in any case. The vote has been brought forward to today. Amendment No 81 states, and I quote: ‘sequences of travel times may be repeated during a journey’, which means there can be repeated journeys and the time limits can be avoided. As a block vote has been applied for, it is no longer possible to vote against Amendment No 81 on its own. I consider that unacceptable. The best thing would be for animals to be transported as little as possible. That is probably pie in the sky. We must be clear that sales-based support for live animal exports is an incentive and that we are therefore deceiving ourselves if we want to cut animal transports to a minimum so long as such support continues.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 95% of live animal transports are by road and we are all familiar with the images of tormented animals confined in a very narrow space for days on end as they are transported across Europe and beyond. There can be no doubt that something needs to be done. I support the proposals made in this report that will help to improve standards in live animal transports, such as setting minimum standards for the vehicles used, but above all the introduction of additional supervisory measures, because however good the rules may be, they will not work if there are no controls. There are already plenty of rules, but enforcement and controls are lacking. Amendment No 2, of which I am a co-signatory, is designed to clarify the term ‘journey’ in order to prevent the maximum duration of transport being exceeded by the back door, so to speak. Transport times must be reduced in any case. The vote has been brought forward to today. Amendment No 81 states, and I quote: ‘sequences of travel times may be repeated during a journey’, which means there can be repeated journeys and the time limits can be avoided. As a block vote has been applied for, it is no longer possible to vote against Amendment No 81 on its own. I consider that unacceptable. The best thing would be for animals to be transported as little as possible. That is probably pie in the sky. We must be clear that sales-based support for live animal exports is an incentive and that we are therefore deceiving ourselves if we want to cut animal transports to a minimum so long as such support continues.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001173.txt','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001176.txt','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001180.txt','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001191.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found; the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs; European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy; Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001221.txt','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001226.txt','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001246.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001247.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word it should be implemented. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word; it should be implemented. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001248.txt','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001250.txt','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001259.txt','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001261.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet; this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001262.txt','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001264.txt','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001265.txt','Madam President, it goes without saying that we must back the joint prosecution of tax fraud in Europe. However, the EU continues to be outsmarted by professional tax fraudsters because our systems are far too complex. We are flinging the doors open wide to such fraudsters and in so doing indirectly encouraging tax fraud. If we are to do anything effective against it, we need not only more effective controls and close cooperation, but also tax laws that are easy to understand. We urgently need a reform of our VAT system, for example. The highly complex dual VAT system where national sales are treated differently from EU sales is a major factor in billions being evaded relatively easily in the EU every year. That is why we need a simpler VAT system that is easier to understand and where all sales in Europe are treated in the same way and not differently, so that tax fraud can actually be combated effectively. Proposals have already been made to this effect we only have to implement them. I therefore propose that we at last introduce the tax card into the VAT system and treat sales the same, not differently, so as to achieve the aims we have set by actually cutting tax fraud.','Madam President, it goes without saying that we must back the joint prosecution of tax fraud in Europe. However, the EU continues to be outsmarted by professional tax fraudsters because our systems are far too complex. We are flinging the doors open wide to such fraudsters and in so doing indirectly encouraging tax fraud. If we are to do anything effective against it, we need not only more effective controls and close cooperation, but also tax laws that are easy to understand. We urgently need a reform of our VAT system, for example. The highly complex dual VAT system where national sales are treated differently from EU sales is a major factor in billions being evaded relatively easily in the EU every year. That is why we need a simpler VAT system that is easier to understand and where all sales in Europe are treated in the same way and not differently, so that tax fraud can actually be combated effectively. Proposals have already been made to this effect; we only have to implement them. I therefore propose that we at last introduce the tax card into the VAT system and treat sales the same, not differently, so as to achieve the aims we have set by actually cutting tax fraud.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001286.txt','Madam President, Europe has a special historical responsibility for the peace process in the Middle East. This means proceeding with great sensitivity and not taking a schoolmasterly line or apportioning blame to one side alone. The fact that the Foreign Minister himself responded to the last peace negotiations by stepping down, serves as a reminder to us that above all in Israel, which is the stable democracy in the region, every step taken by the politicians must have the backing of the majority of the Israeli people. Nevertheless, we would do well not to forget that for all the fine words uttered, the crucial negotiations for peace in the Middle East take place in the USA and not in Europe. Perhaps those EU politicians whose brief it is, have so far been unable to find the right way to act as genuinely neutral and productive mediators in this conflict.','Madam President, Europe has a special historical responsibility for the peace process in the Middle East. This means proceeding with great sensitivity and not taking a schoolmasterly line or apportioning blame to one side alone. The fact that the Foreign Minister himself responded to the last peace negotiations by stepping down, serves as a reminder to us that above all in Israel, which is the stable democracy in the region, every step taken by the politicians must have the backing of the majority of the Israeli people. Nevertheless, we would do well not to forget that for all the fine words uttered, the crucial negotiations for peace in the Middle East take place in the USA and not in Europe. Perhaps those EU politicians whose brief it is, have so far been unable to find the right way to act as genuinely neutral and productive mediators in this conflict.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001295.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001298.txt','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another; surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary; avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'10013.txt','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100146.txt','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100148.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100153.txt','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100156.txt','Mr President, I too voted in favour of the Stenmark report and would like to add that we all know that the costs of enlargement cannot at present be estimated, but that we have to take care that they do not exceed their limits, as the European public will take an unsympathetic view. That means that we must make savings. We often, and passionately, discuss the costs of translation, which are high and likely to rise in future. We should instead be working towards being able to reduce the costs of a seat for Parliament. The public does not understand how we can presume to say that we can solve Europe\'s problems when we are unable to agree on a location.','Mr President, I too voted in favour of the Stenmark report and would like to add that we all know that the costs of enlargement cannot at present be estimated, but that we have to take care that they do not exceed their limits, as the European public will take an unsympathetic view. That means that we must make savings. We often, and passionately, discuss the costs of translation, which are high and likely to rise in future. We should instead be working towards being able to reduce the costs of a seat for Parliament. The public does not understand how we can presume to say that we can solve Europe\'s problems when we are unable to agree on a location.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State; how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified; if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100180.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'10022.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100225.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes; the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully; it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100252.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’ they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’; they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness; we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100264.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur; well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again; perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public\'s attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100267.txt','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100278.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or Lingua. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or \"Lingua\". Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100286.txt','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.','Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'10029.txt','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004102.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Commissioner Lamy very much for this initiative. It is, I believe, an initiative which once again shows far-sightedness and which attempts to solve problems which we all know lie ahead before they even arise. We all know that we can only enjoy success in world trade if we offer products and services which are also actually bought. Hence my question: thanks to trade on the Internet we have now attained a very high level of activity internationally in the small consignments sector. In Europe we have 18 million employers in a labour force of 250 million. Could you envisage our putting in place appropriate measures for individual small consignments up to a certain number of euros, so that this small-scale trade is also able to develop completely freely, without barriers and without excessive bureaucracy?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004104.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there are some things that are not quite as we would wish them to be in European aviation. Last year, in particular, showed us repeatedly that it is high time to find more common European solutions to ensure that flying in European airspace follows orderly lines again, not to speak of the great dream of limitless freedom above the clouds conjured up by Reinhard Mey. But first and foremost, flying must be safe. We all want flying to remain safe, to see further improvements here in the forefront the rapporteur, Mr Simpson, to whom we owe thanks for an excellent report. There are, however, different views on how to achieve greater safety. I and luckily I am not alone in my view would hope that we leave the practical task of regulating the safety provisions, especially in regard to cabin crew and the accompanying provisions on crew training, to the European Aviation Safety Authority. Surely it should be enough for the European legislator to set out the objectives, rather than getting bogged down in too much detail. Unfortunately, this position did not gain consistent majority support in committee. As a result the text we will be voting on tomorrow includes some rather too detailed provisions, for instance on the kind of training course required and so forth. Perhaps less would be more in this case. Be that as it may, Europe still has a great deal to do on the question of aviation. As we saw in Nice on a very general basis, here too on a more specific basis we could plead for fewer national solutions and a more European approach. The Simpson report is a good step along this road. Let us take that step tomorrow and then pursue it further in a politically convincing manner.','Mr President, Commissioner, there are some things that are not quite as we would wish them to be in European aviation. Last year, in particular, showed us repeatedly that it is high time to find more common European solutions to ensure that flying in European airspace follows orderly lines again, not to speak of the great dream of limitless freedom above the clouds conjured up by Reinhard Mey. But first and foremost, flying must be safe. We all want flying to remain safe, to see further improvements here in the forefront the rapporteur, Mr Simpson, to whom we owe thanks for an excellent report. There are, however, different views on how to achieve greater safety. I and luckily I am not alone in my view would hope that we leave the practical task of regulating the safety provisions, especially in regard to cabin crew and the accompanying provisions on crew training, to the European Aviation Safety Authority. Surely it should be enough for the European legislator to set out the objectives, rather than getting bogged down in too much detail. Unfortunately, this position did not gain consistent majority support in committee. As a result the text we will be voting on tomorrow includes some rather too detailed provisions, for instance on the kind of training course required and so forth. Perhaps less would be more in this case. Be that as it may, Europe still has a great deal to do on the question of aviation. As we saw in Nice on a very general basis, here too on a more specific basis we could plead for fewer national solutions and a more European approach. The Simpson report is a good step along this road. Let us take that step tomorrow and then pursue it further in a politically convincing manner.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.','Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004125.txt','Mr President, Europe is, after all, about unity in diversity, and so I would like to put the following question. How do you think the right of veto will develop? This is a major and very important area for the smaller States. Do you believe – and this also relates to the Convention – that the Council will in future consider the retention of the right of veto in certain areas indispensable?','Mr President, Europe is, after all, about unity in diversity, and so I would like to put the following question. How do you think the right of veto will develop? This is a major and very important area for the smaller States. Do you believe – and this also relates to the Convention – that the Council will in future consider the retention of the right of veto in certain areas indispensable?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004126.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004136.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause)  ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause)  ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria; this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains; they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done; only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004137.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004142.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004151.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004165.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in essence, all our objectives can be summed up in health well into old age, as well as, at the end of the day, the utilisation of the gigantic research potential of small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that the JRC focuses its efforts on nutrition, chemical products and health, as well as, in particular, the environment and sustainable development, technology foresight, reference materials and measurements, but also public safety and the combating of fraud. I would particularly like to thank Mr Schwaiger for pushing so hard for a code of safety standards for atomic power stations, because it is the prevention and containment of accidents that has recently become especially important, and Parliament is agreed that atomic power stations and atomic materials need a specialised approach in order to guarantee their safety in future. It should also be said that, of the EUR 11 billion allocated to specific priorities, at least 15% must of course be used for research projects for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a special allocation of EUR 430 million for horizontal research projects. Then there is the ‘stairway to excellence’, where particular account has to be taken of SMEs, just as European SMEs and European industry will in future work more closely with universities and colleges, institutes of higher education and research organisations. Finally, there is a need for small and medium-sized enterprises also to be allowed to cooperate with small research groups, newly established and distant research sites and with organisations in the candidate countries. I believe that it is of vital importance to involve small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the networks of excellence and in the integrated projects. We must surely be aware that the 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe account for two-thirds of the workforce and, in the final analysis, for 80% of tax revenue, a fact which, I believe, entitles them to work closely with others in research and thus help to shape Europe\'s future. For us, at the end of the day, good research policy, skilfully applied, makes for the best social policy, for it is always the case that first you have to create the necessary economic conditions, and then you can be generous when distributing the gains.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004176.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004188.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004212.txt','We know that business relations can also be a basis for improvements in political relations, and so my question is this: are there any plans to enhance the overall framework for business relations between small- and medium-sized enterprises or family companies between Europe and South Africa, because that could form a basis on which to create, in the poorer regions, prosperity – which is ultimately also the basis for building peace?','We know that business relations can also be a basis for improvements in political relations, and so my question is this: are there any plans to enhance the overall framework for business relations between small- and medium-sized enterprises or family companies between Europe and South Africa, because that could form a basis on which to create, in the poorer regions, prosperity – which is ultimately also the basis for building peace?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004220.txt','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?','Mr President, Mrs Reding, thank you for your explanations. I believe that increasing the awareness of the citizens of Europe is of special importance for the next elections. Is it conceivable to create our own program in the field of ‘learning entertainment’? Young people are clearly very enthusiastic about the Internet, and if we could offer the enjoyment of learning in this area with various possibilities such as prize competitions, trips to Brussels, etc. and could encourage schoolchildren to use our program on the Internet, would that not be one goal for the next five years?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you are quite right to say that business people must sort this out among themselves, but we all know that, in order to do so, they need a marketplace, that is to say, an exchange where it is possible to trade in these rights, these CDM projects. Do you think it possible that the Commission might take the initiative in providing such an exchange with a base in Europe?','Mr President, Commissioner, you are quite right to say that business people must sort this out among themselves, but we all know that, in order to do so, they need a marketplace, that is to say, an exchange where it is possible to trade in these rights, these CDM projects. Do you think it possible that the Commission might take the initiative in providing such an exchange with a base in Europe?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004238.txt','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004247.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004250.txt','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.','Mr President, in the Convention – and this has already been mentioned several times today – we are holding intensive discussions on abolishing the old comitology system. I believe that the end result will indeed move in this direction. Why are we doing this? That too has already been mentioned. We are doing it because the old system of comitology has essentially resulted in underground law, produced by way of methods that are undemocratic, and above all, lacking in transparency. No one in the outside world knows what is done, how it is done or why it is done. Above all, no one in the outside world knows what positions have been put forward here, by whom or why. We have to change this. That is why we will, in the Convention, be abolishing the old comitology system, but – and this too has already been mentioned – this is only possible if we have something with which to replace it. We need delegated lawmaking, but we need delegated lawmaking with clear responsibilities, with clear rules of delegation, with mandates that are clearly understood, and above all with the possibility of recall, an equal right of recall for both the Council and Parliament. In this context I have already referred several times to our discussions in the Convention. Our concern is to ensure that the people of Europe have a clear picture of who is exercising legislative powers, why and for what reason, and the results that emerge on this point will soon be available as a constitutional proposal. This does not however make the work on the Corbett report superfluous; quite the opposite. Until we have included this result in the constitution and implemented it, we need the results of the Corbett report, which are to a large extent along the same lines as what has been said in the Convention. With this in mind not only do we congratulate the rapporteur but we also hope that the resulting proposals will be accepted as unanimously as possible and that an appropriate reform of the way in which this important issue is dealt with will allow them to replace the old, undemocratic system of comitology for the next few years.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004269.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Flemming, ladies and gentlemen, the senior citizens\' card really should also be a symbol of the tremendous purchasing power enjoyed by senior citizens in Europe. We are all aware of the current strikes about the pensions reform. I think that the best practice model would be appropriate here too. We should demonstrate which kind of best-practice reforms have achieved the target most effectively. I would therefore like to ask you this: does the Commission have any thoughts on how to promote pensioners\' power as consumers in future through best practice and benchmarks?','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Flemming, ladies and gentlemen, the senior citizens\' card really should also be a symbol of the tremendous purchasing power enjoyed by senior citizens in Europe. We are all aware of the current strikes about the pensions reform. I think that the best practice model would be appropriate here too. We should demonstrate which kind of best-practice reforms have achieved the target most effectively. I would therefore like to ask you this: does the Commission have any thoughts on how to promote pensioners\' power as consumers in future through best practice and benchmarks?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100429.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayuso González for her hard work as rapporteur for this directive. A directive on increasing the use of biofuels is something that I can only welcome, but I do regret the fact that the current situation falls well short of my expectations. It is precisely by increasing the use of biomass that we can contribute both to securing farmers\' income and creating new jobs in the current and enlarged Europe as well as to enhancing the multifunctional role of the countryside. In addition, such an initiative meets the requirement of sustainability, which is so important from the point of view of protecting the environment. In the light of all this, the compromise proposals on the table are rather disappointing and reflect a definite dilution of the original demands, because all that is left of the original obligation to blend – as we might have expected – are reference values. It would actually have been very pleasing if the Austrian model, which makes it mandatory for more biomass to be used, could have served as a model for Europe as a whole. Finally, I have to note that unfortunately the final paper contains too few incentives for a more efficient use of biofuels. Once again the discrepancies between the interests of the fossil fuel industry and farming are clear for all to see. Given the finite nature of oil deposits and bearing in mind the Kyoto targets, we can only hope for the future that this is not a closed book, that further efforts will be made to push up the use of biofuels and that this really is just the first step in the right direction, if all of us really do feel a credible and serious responsibility for providing future generations with a secure foundation on which to live.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004304.txt','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.','Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004315.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the team of Fischler, Lamy and Neyts most warmly for getting a new round of talks together. It is, though – in my opinion, Mr Ettl – significant that people are talking to each other rather than looking for points of conflict. I believe that this spurt of growth in Europe, especially in employment in Europe, is of enormous significance – but not only for Europe, for, particularly in the developing countries, millions of people will be able to cross the poverty line, something that represents a breakthrough for the poor in the developing countries as well. I believe this is of especial significance for Europe, which is the world\'s greatest exporter of goods and services and the world\'s biggest investor. Discussions covered many areas affecting the developing countries, the environment, social affairs and animal protection too, and I believe that efforts are being made to find consensus here as well. We should not forget, though, that the WTO should also be concerning itself with the creation of fair general conditions for investment, competition and market access. We must remove the administrative obstacles to trade and take reciprocity into account when opening up markets; we need maxima for customs duties and reliefs for SMEs and for products sent in small quantities. Where trade works, so does democracy, and prosperity is the result. I also take the view that the real, economic actors should be more deeply involved in the negotiations, and I believe it is right and proper that we should bring in EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, UEAPME and the SME-Union, so that they can join in discussions on this subject. To tell the truth, conglomerates no longer see the WTO as the core issue – there is already a McDonald\'s in every city in the world. I would like to end by asking another group to explain to us how they are going to handle the confidentiality of discussions between the Commission and Parliament in future. I believe we need a solution to this in order to guarantee good, honest cooperation in the future.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004318.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society\'s displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004322.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU-Slovakia Joint Parliamentary Committee recently toured our border with Slovakia. Near Kosicec there is a forty-kilometre long border strip consisting of green fields. We were told that this is very difficult to monitor and that, at present, a very substantial influx of Afghan refugees can be observed there, perhaps not all of whom are entering Europe motivated by peaceful intentions. I would therefore like to ask if it is possible for the Commission to introduce satellite surveillance here, for example, or automated systems, making it possible on the one hand to gather statistical material and, on the other, to pick up more of these refugees and so be better protected in future? What programmes are in fact available to these states?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU-Slovakia Joint Parliamentary Committee recently toured our border with Slovakia. Near Kosicec there is a forty-kilometre long border strip consisting of green fields. We were told that this is very difficult to monitor and that, at present, a very substantial influx of Afghan refugees can be observed there, perhaps not all of whom are entering Europe motivated by peaceful intentions. I would therefore like to ask if it is possible for the Commission to introduce satellite surveillance here, for example, or automated systems, making it possible on the one hand to gather statistical material and, on the other, to pick up more of these refugees and so be better protected in future? What programmes are in fact available to these states?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004342.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change; it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004345.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004348.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is evident from the debate and the report that we are taking an optimistic attitude to this report, because of the forecasts and the upturn in the European economy since the summer of 1999. However, we are also level-headed and determined in our approach. We are being level-headed about the prospects, deficits and external value of the euro, and are determined to overcome the deficit vis-à-vis the United States as swiftly and as soon as possible. The deficit stems from the fact that we have a lower level of growth, higher unemployment, lower investment levels, less research and development activity, a slower rate of turnover and a low average income.  This is what has led us to draw up a plan comprising a variety of objectives and necessary measures, such as accelerated growth with no capacity bottlenecks or inflationary pressure, preserving price stability in other words, careful wage development, stepping up our efforts in research and development and a further reduction of deficits and debts. We need to continue to pursue structural reform measures, and to do so with courage and determination, and to continue liberalisation, thus reducing the level of state ownership. We need to direct our efforts at creating new jobs, i.e. we need to support the new economy, and we must make the transition to the knowledge-based economy, which can be ascribed to the fact that we need competition when it comes to getting into telecommunications technology in education, training and research. If we go down this path, then, for the first time in years, there is a chance that we could return to full employment in Europe, and that is our goal.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004377.txt','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.','Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament\'s report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe\'s farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People\'s Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004381.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared….. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004386.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004387.txt','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)','Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the Greens, and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the Greens who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause)  That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause)  If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004389.txt','I support the entire telecommunications package because it has many strengths. Due to the constantly increasing demand for frequencies, whether it be from communication networks, radio, traffic, the police, the armed forces and science, a coordinated action in Europe in international competition is simply essential. Harmonisation at EU-level is generally helping to create a continental market that can totally hold its own against US competitors. Furthermore, I would like to mention the increased process of administrative simplification – eight acts were created out of a total of twenty – which is a thoroughly positive development. Rules of competition will be the most important instrument used to regulate the market for electronic communications. Until genuine competition can take place on the market, clearer criteria with regard to regulatory intervention and more precise limits and conditions for allocating obligations regarding the granting of access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks are necessary. Therefore, I expressly welcome Mr Brunetta’s report, which proposes reasonable obligations for the operator and stresses that prior regulations should be repealed as soon as the aims pursued have been achieved via market mechanisms. Such interventions will be necessary so long as the former monopoly holders, who still provide the most connections, exist. The meagre resources, controlled by one or a few of the operators, for example the local access network in telecommunications, are currently yet another obstruction to competition.','I support the entire telecommunications package because it has many strengths. Due to the constantly increasing demand for frequencies, whether it be from communication networks, radio, traffic, the police, the armed forces and science, a coordinated action in Europe in international competition is simply essential. Harmonisation at EU-level is generally helping to create a continental market that can totally hold its own against US competitors. Furthermore, I would like to mention the increased process of administrative simplification – eight acts were created out of a total of twenty – which is a thoroughly positive development. Rules of competition will be the most important instrument used to regulate the market for electronic communications. Until genuine competition can take place on the market, clearer criteria with regard to regulatory intervention and more precise limits and conditions for allocating obligations regarding the granting of access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks are necessary. Therefore, I expressly welcome Mr Brunetta’s report, which proposes reasonable obligations for the operator and stresses that prior regulations should be repealed as soon as the aims pursued have been achieved via market mechanisms. Such interventions will be necessary so long as the former monopoly holders, who still provide the most connections, exist. The meagre resources, controlled by one or a few of the operators, for example the local access network in telecommunications, are currently yet another obstruction to competition.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004392.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004407.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.','Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004448.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004471.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004472.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004474.txt','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.','Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004489.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by congratulating Commissioner Monti, because I believe he is looking after the rights of consumers and of the citizens of Europe, and they are entitled to obtain a decent quality of service and, more importantly, to obtain it at a reasonable price. One of the fundamental defining characteristics of services of general interest is that they are subject to a transparent public tendering procedure. I believe there is still a great deal of confusion here between liberalisation and privatisation. I believe that liberalisation offers a fair framework for competition. In Sweden, for example, we have seen that many towns and cities, often administered by one and the same political party, compete with each other in a bid to provide the best possible services and that a town or municipal administration offering the best deal to the public, to the consumer, is awarded the franchise to provide its services in other towns and cities too. In public tendering procedures, it is possible to specify quite precisely what is wanted. If, for example, a railway service is being put out to tender, a public authority can say that there will be three people at six in the morning, twelve at ten o’clock in the morning and three again at midnight. Good and appropriate tender specifications can then be drawn up for the service from A to B. I am also in favour of public resources being used here, because we are all in favour of the social component of government activity. We want to ensure that services of general interest are accessible to people who have no driving licence or who have financial problems, mobility problems or other disadvantages. I have to say, though, that liberalisation and fair competition are one track, while privatisation is a second track. I would ask that we try to avoid confusing the two and focus here on the systematic pursuit of the strategy of free competition. In this context I should like to congratulate Commissioner Monti once again for organising his proposal along these very lines. It goes without saying that city councils and public administrations which provide services of general interest will have to compete with our small and medium-sized enterprises. This is why public bodies put services out to tender. At the present time, two out of every three employees works for a small or medium-sized enterprise. There are 18 million businesses here that can bid for a franchise to provide public services for the benefit of consumers. The small and medium-sized businesses pay 80% of total tax revenue; in other words, they ultimately provide the money that enables us to afford these social services in the general public interest. For this reason I believe that the term ‘social economy’, which was once in common use, is inappropriate, as is our German term Daseinsvorsorge , literally ‘subsistence provision’, which is commonly used to translate ‘services of general interest’. What we want is the best service for our citizens. That can only be provided in the framework of fair competition.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(3.3640172105298713,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,2,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004500.txt','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004503.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. ( Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(3.3640172105298713,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,2,'1004527.txt','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004536.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004538.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.','Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the Wuermeling report, the consumer credit directive. I would like to expressly thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and the good cooperation between the committees. He had a hard task because the Commission’s draft was, to put it mildly, a bad one. The Commission’s proposal starts from false assumptions. It plays the interests of consumers against those of the banks and in many cases it actually incites the one against the other, despite the fact that Europe needs more cooperation not recrimination, more seriousness instead of populist superficiality. We say a clear yes to consumer protection, yes to greater transparency, yes to reciprocal information, yes to lower and upper limits for the applicability of the directive. We say a clear no to more red tape for retail loans, no to making retail loans more expensive and no to the inclusion of overdrafts in this directive. I hope that the draft Parliament has produced, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, does justice to the real intentions of this directive, which are to improve consumer protection while cutting bureaucracy, to provide greater transparency and to make for greater trust and mutual consideration, and that it will thereby promote consumer interests and cross-border borrowing. I ask you all to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur, because that is the only way to increase cooperation rather than conflict.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100454.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market probably got its best birthday present today in the form of the Commissioner\'s words that, despite its achievements, his patience is wearing thin. I thank you for your impatience, hoping that, for the good of the internal market, all who operate in it and especially all who impede its progress will be made increasingly aware of how impatient you are. Europe must become a continent, and the EU must become a political union. We therefore give an unreserved ‘yes’ to an internal market that is developing fully and is able to give full expression to its dynamism for the good of Europe. We have only a year left to implement the internal market strategy for 1999/2004, a year in which we will need greater seriousness of purpose in place of half-heartedness, more speed in place of hesitancy and greater responsibility for the whole rather than parochialism. There is no mistaking the internal market\'s significance, which became apparent in the aftermath of 11 September. The stronger our internal market, the stronger is Europe\'s position in the world, and the more independent we are. This, then, makes me very glad that we are now discussing enlargement, as enlargement will extend our internal market and thereby strengthen Europe. The euro has made the internal market into a domestic market for many countries and thus strengthened it overall, so I also want to expressly welcome the internal market safeguard clause in the accession treaties. Directives need to be transposed with greater speed. We need the decision-making process to be speeded up, rather than have it take twenty-eight months as it did with company pension schemes. We need a debate to get the regulation of competences revised in the light of the internal market strategy and of the Lisbon strategy and made the basis of the work in the Convention. So what I expect of you – even bearing your impatience in mind – is that you avail yourself more of your right of initiative and name names rather than keeping quiet about those who are blocking progress.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market probably got its best birthday present today in the form of the Commissioner\'s words that, despite its achievements, his patience is wearing thin. I thank you for your impatience, hoping that, for the good of the internal market, all who operate in it and especially all who impede its progress will be made increasingly aware of how impatient you are. Europe must become a continent, and the EU must become a political union. We therefore give an unreserved ‘yes’ to an internal market that is developing fully and is able to give full expression to its dynamism for the good of Europe. We have only a year left to implement the internal market strategy for 1999/2004, a year in which we will need greater seriousness of purpose in place of half-heartedness, more speed in place of hesitancy and greater responsibility for the whole rather than parochialism. There is no mistaking the internal market\'s significance, which became apparent in the aftermath of 11 September. The stronger our internal market, the stronger is Europe\'s position in the world, and the more independent we are. This, then, makes me very glad that we are now discussing enlargement, as enlargement will extend our internal market and thereby strengthen Europe. The euro has made the internal market into a domestic market for many countries and thus strengthened it overall, so I also want to expressly welcome the internal market safeguard clause in the accession treaties. Directives need to be transposed with greater speed. We need the decision-making process to be speeded up, rather than have it take twenty-eight months as it did with company pension schemes. We need a debate to get the regulation of competences revised in the light of the internal market strategy and of the Lisbon strategy and made the basis of the work in the Convention. So what I expect of you – even bearing your impatience in mind – is that you avail yourself more of your right of initiative and name names rather than keeping quiet about those who are blocking progress.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004543.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004566.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100457.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004575.txt','Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.','Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004585.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004602.txt','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004607.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e -commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004616.txt','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004617.txt','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!','Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector; we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(1.6820086052649357,1.6820086052649357,1000,'Europe',186,1,'1004640.txt','Mr President, this debate is already overdue because the BSE crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. We currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. It is because of the BSE crisis that we are pressed for time. When, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in Europe? Will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs?','Mr President, this debate is already overdue because the BSE crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. We currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. It is because of the BSE crisis that we are pressed for time. When, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in Europe? Will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Europeanisation',2,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Europeanisation',2,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Agency_for_Reconstruction',2,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Agency_for_Reconstruction',2,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Agricultural_Guarantee_Fund',2,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Agricultural_Guarantee_Fund',2,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Americans',1,1,'1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Anti-fraud_Office',1,1,'1001144.txt','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Arrest_Warrant',3,1,'100158.txt','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Arrest_Warrant',3,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Arrest_Warrant',3,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Atomic_Energy_Community',4,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Atomic_Energy_Community',4,1,'1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Atomic_Energy_Community',4,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Atomic_Energy_Community',4,1,'1004384.txt','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Audiovisual_Observatory',1,1,'100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,2,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,2,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004362.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies.  Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved.  I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact.  On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins.  (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,2,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,2,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(8.149083869825843,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Central_Bank',17,2,'100456.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid; it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Charter_for_Regional_or_Minority_Languages',1,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001108.txt','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001122.txt','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies; but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001134.txt','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001155.txt','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001157.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001216.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001249.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001257.txt','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.'),(4.4328147933739865,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,2,'100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100182.txt','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100191.txt','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays; increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100192.txt','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am new to this Parliament. Allow me to make a comment: debates about cultural policy – a handful of people are present who are, however, by and large like-minded. I believe we have an almighty struggle ahead of us. And because there are so few of us, we must also stick together here. Turning now to the Observatory. As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that was asked for an opinion, I naturally speak in favour of the Community’s participating in the European Audiovisual Observatory. I also concur with the Commission’s proposal that the period of this involvement should be set at five years. As already mentioned, the Observatory counts 34 European countries as members and therefore almost anticipates the forthcoming enlargement of the EU as well. It does not just confine itself to market research and to gathering statistics and does not therefore only juggle with figures. Instead, it offers qualitative analyses and goes so far as to provide legal information. It is, above all, especially important to have information about the resources available to particular branches of industry. Information of this kind is of course important when overseeing, evaluating and formulating Community programmes in the audiovisual sector, and it is of decisive importance to industry itself and especially to small and medium-sized businesses. This is where my only criticism comes in. According to my researches, it is, in many Member States, precisely the small and medium-sized businesses which know anything from not enough to nothing at all about the Observatory. And yet it is they which would find using this service of great importance. Respective contacts were challenged and questioned about this matter at various levels, and I am pleased that, at my suggestion, the Commission has made a really good proposal, namely to include a clearly visible link on its home page. I hope that this proposal is also soon translated into action. In view of the forthcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, during which the audiovisual sector will also be discussed, it is becoming ever clearer how important it is for reliable information about markets in Europe to be available not only to political decision-makers such as the Community bodies, the governments of the Member States and the social and economic decision-makers of the Member States and regions, but also to researchers, universities and the media. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100267.txt','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.','Mr President, in common with all the previous speakers, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Thors on her report. It is a very sound and important report. Digital television is one of the most important contributors to convergence, and will become one of the primary means of accessing the data highways. Digital television will afford increased and wider access, also for the more remote regions. Therefore, it is important to make operators’ lives easier, rather than introducing far too many regulations.  But this balancing act between investment, development and minimal regulation gets particularly difficult when there is a need to safeguard cultural diversity and general information. This is where we need to look for ideal solutions within the new framework conditions, with all due respect for quality.  Accordingly, Mrs Thors\' report meets with our approval. We echo her demand for separation of content and infrastructure and for the obligation to transmit on particular channels. We are calling for decoder parts to be made part of the information infrastructure, for the interoperability of decoders to be addressed, and for Member States to be afforded the opportunity to demand open networks. We also welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission approves of mergers, provided open standards are used. This will be another useful tool in our efforts to prevent abuse of dominant positions.  Last but not least, I too would like to endorse what previous speakers have said. There is no internal market for TV services. We need to tackle this with sensitivity, and fast. In the light of the developments that have taken place, it is absolutely essential that we enter into a comprehensive debate on public service broadcasting. Without infringing the subsidiarity principle, we in Europe have a responsibility not to put public service broadcasters at the mercy of the forces of competition, when they have a duty to provide information and to safeguard cultural diversity. I would urge every one here to be particularly sensitive in this respect.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'10029.txt','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004112.txt','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.','Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission\'s assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004189.txt','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)','Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004221.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004234.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle; I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.'),(4.4328147933739865,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,2,'1004248.txt','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004283.txt','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.','Mr President, this is the second reading on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what we actually need this incredibly important product for. PentaBDE is used exclusively in the manufacture of flexible foam for furniture and upholstery. This is certainly a highly important area. The Council common position is generally in line with the Commission\'s amended proposal, and I am delighted that the Council welcomes the amendment removing the derogation for octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of less than 5%. It is also to be welcomed that the Council has partly accepted an amendment demanding that octaBDE with a pentaBDE content of over 0.1% should no longer be tolerated in view of the restrictions on the use of pentaBDE. During the second reading in committee, my group fully supported all four amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as we also did at first reading, the aim of these being to achieve a ban on octaBDE. We will of course also support Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I am only speaking on behalf of Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I shall take the liberty of using her words as regards the remaining amendments, which my group will not be supporting. She felt that the other amendments were ‘pure nonsense’.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004300.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004303.txt','Mr President, I abstained from voting because I consider it necessary for the Commission to continue to cultivate intensive contacts with the government but also to endeavour to cooperate in a more focused way with the non-governmental organisations. I believe that media policy too is very important and that it is very important that we should also clarify to the population at the coalface what is actually happening. It should also be our policy to bring together both parties to the conflict. The Commission has already done a very great deal in this area and, in this connection, I wish it every success in the future.','Mr President, I abstained from voting because I consider it necessary for the Commission to continue to cultivate intensive contacts with the government but also to endeavour to cooperate in a more focused way with the non-governmental organisations. I believe that media policy too is very important and that it is very important that we should also clarify to the population at the coalface what is actually happening. It should also be our policy to bring together both parties to the conflict. The Commission has already done a very great deal in this area and, in this connection, I wish it every success in the future.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004312.txt','The Commission has, at the request of Parliament, submitted two framework directives. As these are within the competence of the European Institutions, we have voted to approve them, even though we do not agree with everything that they contain.','The Commission has, at the request of Parliament, submitted two framework directives. As these are within the competence of the European Institutions, we have voted to approve them, even though we do not agree with everything that they contain.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004323.txt','Mr President, what interests me most is how the euro-debate will go on from here, after the referendum in Denmark, and what changes the Commission intends to make to the information strategy?','Mr President, what interests me most is how the euro-debate will go on from here, after the referendum in Denmark, and what changes the Commission intends to make to the information strategy?'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004331.txt','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004337.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004345.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004365.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004405.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004448.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?','Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission\'s budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004453.txt','Mr President, preventive health care is a major priority for everyone here in this House. We know that tobacco growers in the Member States have different priorities. I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following question, although I have always been, and still am, a non-smoker: does the Commission not think that if tobacco cultivation were to be completely discontinued within the European Union with immediate effect – as called for by a fair number of people – people would just carry on smoking regardless because tobacco products would be imported into the EU?','Mr President, preventive health care is a major priority for everyone here in this House. We know that tobacco growers in the Member States have different priorities. I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following question, although I have always been, and still am, a non-smoker: does the Commission not think that if tobacco cultivation were to be completely discontinued within the European Union with immediate effect – as called for by a fair number of people – people would just carry on smoking regardless because tobacco products would be imported into the EU?'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004483.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004502.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe\'s energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(4.4328147933739865,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,2,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004566.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, safety on our roads is of great concern to us all. Given the ever increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads I am at pains to emphasise the need for vehicles to meet the highest possible technical roadworthiness standards, but also the need to take environmental aspects into account. Although – and I should like to say this most emphatically – it is also necessary, if the directive is not only to pay lip service to these ideals, for it to be applied by the Member States and invested with appropriate penalties. The best directive will be ineffective in everyday life if it does not provide any penalties for non-compliance or violations. I therefore support the amendments providing for guilty parties to be punished, because the operation of motor vehicles, which in principle presents a risk and entails a potential danger to people, must be supervised properly and with the necessary care and expertise. In any case we must prevent this from being dealt with thoughtlessly, precisely because this is about a directive which provides for rules not only for heavy goods vehicles but also for commercial vehicles carrying people. Time and again we are all severely shaken when there are major accidents which are due purely to technical defects. Because of this I am glad that the report is not actually controversial and that Parliament is once again proving to be the driving force in the debate about traffic safety on Europe\'s roads. My particular thanks go to all those who work with such dedication in this field in the committee, in the Commission and in the Council.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(2.2164073966869933,2.2164073966869933,1000,'European_Commission',109,1,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,2,'1004206.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, you started, Commissioner Solbes, by mentioning that you are working on getting the Treaty changed. I should like to ask you straight up: exactly what changes are you working on? How will the European Parliament and codecision and joint competence fit in with these changes? And for my second question. We all talk about growth and employment. We have the stability and growth pact. We have the internal market. We have the Lisbon process. What potential for coordination in these three agreements has still not been exhausted and how does the Treaty prevent these orders from being fulfilled?','Mr President, Commissioners, you started, Commissioner Solbes, by mentioning that you are working on getting the Treaty changed. I should like to ask you straight up: exactly what changes are you working on? How will the European Parliament and codecision and joint competence fit in with these changes? And for my second question. We all talk about growth and employment. We have the stability and growth pact. We have the internal market. We have the Lisbon process. What potential for coordination in these three agreements has still not been exhausted and how does the Treaty prevent these orders from being fulfilled?'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'1004268.txt','Mr President, I should like to stress that the Commissioner was quite right in what she said. The Treaty can only be revised, and rightly so, if equivalent measures are introduced. Exactly what are they then?','Mr President, I should like to stress that the Commissioner was quite right in what she said. The Treaty can only be revised, and rightly so, if equivalent measures are introduced. Exactly what are they then?'),(9.019720012365534,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,2,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'1004386.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency\'s priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'European_Commissioner',11,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Commissioner_for_External_Relations',1,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Committee_for_Standardization',2,1,'100121.txt','Mr President, paragraph 46 of the report calls on the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety to report to Parliament on the implementation of safety measures for Temelin before accession negotiations are concluded. This requirement is proper and important because the operators are currently not even satisfying key minimum safety requirements such as renovation of the much discussed 28.8 m level. The much criticised quality of unsafe valves has not been improved either. The pipes still do not have a second protective coating as European standards require. The first protective coating is inadequate in any case. The Temelin nuclear power station does not therefore at all satisfy the conditions laid down by the Council working party as agreed in the Melk Process. If this is disregarded, the Commission’s attempt, early this month, to create new safety standards for nuclear power stations can be considered a failure from the outset.','Mr President, paragraph 46 of the report calls on the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety to report to Parliament on the implementation of safety measures for Temelin before accession negotiations are concluded. This requirement is proper and important because the operators are currently not even satisfying key minimum safety requirements such as renovation of the much discussed 28.8 m level. The much criticised quality of unsafe valves has not been improved either. The pipes still do not have a second protective coating as European standards require. The first protective coating is inadequate in any case. The Temelin nuclear power station does not therefore at all satisfy the conditions laid down by the Council working party as agreed in the Melk Process. If this is disregarded, the Commission’s attempt, early this month, to create new safety standards for nuclear power stations can be considered a failure from the outset.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Committee_for_Standardization',2,1,'100464.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for your kind words acknowledging Parliament’s efforts. We know that it is not only engineers who sit in Parliament but also good, elected politicians who seek to make the best of each proposal. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Glante and also Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who have been very involved in this discussion. I think we have learnt a great deal over the past few months about the technology involved, and eventually concluded that, at the end of the day, this is still a political decision. I would also like to express my thanks for the compromise solution, which received substantial support from our colleagues. I think our colleagues’ work represents an even greater achievement given the complexity of the subject matter they had to get to grips with. The way the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted indicates that this directive will be approved tomorrow. I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a conciliation procedure. Perhaps we could have included a few more items that way, but I consider that the main points of our general approach are already present. We wanted to play it safe and make sure we had a directive since, particularly next year, when the internal market comes out of the budgets, the directive will clearly be very important for establishing a level playing field for all market players from the outset. That is also why the relevant definitions were very important. Our aim is to improve the security of our energy supply. Obviously we can make use of micro-cogeneration, for a start. We want to see lots of market players, who will improve the security of energy supply but will also increase energy efficiency and above all – I think this was the really decisive factor – will improve grid security. The blackouts have taught us all that there is often a great difference between the electricity traded and that which is actually supplied, and consequently that we need a lot of points in the grid to provide grid stability. Residential users then have an opportunity later on to recover part of their energy bill as electricity supply. Micro-cogeneration provides an opportunity for householders to obtain more efficient and cheaper energy along with greater energy security from the energy industry as domestic users. This benefits both the public sector and domestic consumers, and we are here to work for the good of our citizens. I believe that lower energy bills will result in a healthier bank balance for every citizen. A standard definition of cogeneration is essential. I think that the most important point is actually our declaration that we will accept different calculation methods, notably the CEN proposal, which we await with great interest. We have Prothermo as a basis, but the Commission should also carefully examine our proposals for calculating net electricity. This sets a standard that will, in future, be very important for everyone. Another particularly important element is the equal weighting given to producers’ own consumption of cogenerated electricity and electricity fed into the grid, and therefore to mechanical and other plants which do not feed into the grid. Energy is very important in this support system. I think we have achieved the best possible result. No one got everything, but I think this optimum solution will also allow us to show how important Europe is, including in our elections next year.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Committee_of_the_Regions',1,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Convention_for_the_Prevention_of_Torture_and_Inhuman_or_Degrading_Treatment_or_Punishment',1,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(8.537395898717756,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,2,'1001162.txt','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(8.537395898717756,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,2,'1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(8.537395898717756,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,2,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'1004270.txt','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'1004452.txt','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.','Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten\'s report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2\'s listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.'),(4.268697949358878,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(8.537395898717756,4.268697949358878,1000,'European_Convention_on_Human_Rights',14,2,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1001253.txt','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004383.txt','Madam President, allow me briefly to correct what the President-in-Office of the Council said. Two heads of government, Mr President-in-Office, have already been reprimanded by their parliaments for the steps which they initiated against Austria. You therefore had no right to speak on behalf of their countries on the contrary, you obviously spoke as the head of a socialist party. At most, Mr President-in-Office, you can therefore only speak of twelve countries.','Madam President, allow me briefly to correct what the President-in-Office of the Council said. Two heads of government, Mr President-in-Office, have already been reprimanded by their parliaments for the steps which they initiated against Austria. You therefore had no right to speak on behalf of their countries; on the contrary, you obviously spoke as the head of a socialist party. At most, Mr President-in-Office, you can therefore only speak of twelve countries.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004395.txt','Mr President, this Chamber was illegally stormed this afternoon during the debate on Turkey. This is not the first time we have been pestered in this way. This is also a question of the security of the European institutions. Does the Council have any plans to strengthen security in the European institutions?','Mr President, this Chamber was illegally stormed this afternoon during the debate on Turkey. This is not the first time we have been pestered in this way. This is also a question of the security of the European institutions. Does the Council have any plans to strengthen security in the European institutions?');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'100446.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking have a high status in the lifestyles of Europeans. The clear trend is for consumers to desire and demand high-quality food. It is essential that our farmers should produce fresh and natural food. European food must correspond to the demands which consumers are increasingly placing on it, and quite rightly too. Consumers want food which is safe and healthy and which has been produced and processed in ways that are friendly to the environment and to animals. In the end, health is important to all of us, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to point out here that over recent years, indeed decades, Austria has pursued another path in agricultural policy. I must say that it has proved worthwhile. Over 10% of farmers in Austria, in other words 20,000 businesses, engage in organic farming. In view of increasing competition and further concentration in the market, the future of the foodstuffs industry lies in the specific promotion and development of quality products and services. That is one reason why we cannot, and should not, afford scandals such as the BSE and dioxin affairs, irrespective of whether they were triggered by carelessness, avarice or whatever. The image of us all, of farmers and producers, is damaged by such events, and this has consequences. Not only does it lead to uncertainty for the European consumer, but it also damages our foreign trade. The strength of Europe and that of European agriculture lie in their good reputation. I would therefore vigorously urge us to go in more for trademarks and symbols of quality. With our guaranteed production methods, we can really only win. I would also urge that Europe should not fence off or close its markets, but pursue purposeful agricultural and food policies which are in keeping with the conditions and also the needs to be found in Europe. The European model for agriculture, as decided at the European Summit in Berlin, must be given priority in the WTO negotiations. I would also call for it to be at last stipulated that all feedingstuffs should be labelled. We as farmers can only produce high-quality products if we can also be certain that the animal feed we also have to buy is also in order. Labelling is one way to achieve that goal. For the consumer, however, this means that quality has its price and that food, including meat, should not be used, as it has been to date, as a lure in supermarkets. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Council',18,1,'1004625.txt','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas; how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Court_of_Auditors',8,1,'1001109.txt','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless unsatisfactory from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless \"unsatisfactory\" from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause; it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Court_of_Auditors',8,1,'100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Court_of_Auditors',8,1,'100182.txt','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Court_of_Auditors',8,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Court_of_Auditors',8,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Court_of_Auditors',8,1,'1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Court_of_Auditors',8,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Court_of_Auditors',8,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Court_of_Human_Rights',3,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Court_of_Human_Rights',3,1,'100195.txt','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Court_of_Human_Rights',3,2,'1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1001119.txt','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'100195.txt','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1004230.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Court_of_Justice',18,1,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_cucumber',1,1,'1004349.txt','Madam President, I just wanted to explain that this directive on a uniform bus for Europe was rejected by all groups at first reading. Then there were 90 pages today there are 150. That is why the European People’s Party has brought in Amendment No 9. I support referring this draft directive back to committee because, after the standardisation of the European cucumber, we do not want the standardisation of the European bus as well. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, I just wanted to explain that this directive on a uniform bus for Europe was rejected by all groups at first reading. Then there were 90 pages; today there are 150. That is why the European People’s Party has brought in Amendment No 9. I support referring this draft directive back to committee because, after the standardisation of the European cucumber, we do not want the standardisation of the European bus as well. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. (Applause from the right)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_debt_crisis',1,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100277.txt','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Berlusconi, at the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference, you amused your colleagues with a joke about how you might make the people happy. The punchline is that someone advises you to throw yourself out of a helicopter. We are very glad that you did not do so, but we are not amused by the way you threw out the European Constitution instead. There are three kinds of failure: you can lose to your opponents, you can fail to achieve goals that are set too high, and you can be your own downfall. The Intergovernmental Conference brought itself down. Nobody was against it. You had the Convention behind you, with an overwhelming consensus of the larger Member States and the smaller ones, the old ones and the new, of parliaments and governments. Only in your own ranks did you have opponents. Did you fail because you were aiming too high? No, for, apart from the Convention proposals, there was no controversy; even with your 300 amendments, you went nowhere near as far as what the Convention had proposed, and not even as far as the Treaties of Nice. You were the cause of your own failure. Having been called upon to take responsibility for Europe, you fought for national egoisms; having been called upon to create a balance between the institutions and a European democracy, you tried to build on your own power advantage, and to waste no time in gaining advantages for the national governments. You had the chance to defend the Convention’s consensus – which was the greatest that could have been achieved – but instead you lost it. There is, I believe, one hope left to us. You, Mr President-in-Office, have tried; the governments have tried – and they have failed. After the partial failure of Amsterdam and the total failure of Nice, they have now, finally, failed. All that we can now do is to appeal to the governments’ sense of reason in persuading them to accept the Convention draft, Europe’s highest common denominator, after all. (Applause)'),(4.135166556742356,4.135166556742356,1000,'European_Democracy',16,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Democracy_(Cyprus)',1,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'100426.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004367.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'European_Democrats',10,1,'1004621.txt','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_driving_licence',1,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Economic_and_Social_Committee',2,1,'1004371.txt','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?','Mr President, the social partnership should be a forward-looking partnership. The first priority should be to implement what both sides want for themselves, and I believe that dialogue is an essential and important prerequisite in this respect. What do you perceive the role of the existing Economic and Social Committee to be in this context, and what changes do you think will need to be made here, to enable it to become more actively involved in the work in future?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Economic_and_Social_Committee',2,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'European_Economic_Area',6,1,'1001120.txt','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'European_Economic_Area',6,1,'1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'European_Economic_Area',6,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'European_Economic_Area',6,1,'1004248.txt','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'European_Economic_Area',6,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'European_Economic_Area',6,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'100285.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers\' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The Greens are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004154.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004266.txt','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of The future of the Union quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)','Mr President, Laeken has gone better than Nice did last year, and for that the Belgian Presidency is to be thanked, yet the positive outcome has to do with another matter on which Laeken was to give a decision. Nothing had been decided by last weekend on the central topic of \"The future of the Union\"; quite rightly, only questions had been asked about it. Even a cursory analysis of the questions, though, shows that some of them are not questions at all, such as the rhetorical question as to whether it would contribute to greater transparency if the sessions of the Council – at any rate in its legislative capacity – were to be in public. Now, it goes without saying that legislative Council sessions must be thrown open, but why did something so obvious not become legally binding at Maastricht or Amsterdam or, at the latest, at Nice? Another question in the catalogue of Laeken declarations makes me similarly pensive. We have to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the Basic Treaty and whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Does this mean that the results of the last Convention are really nothing more than an option? I hope not. I take an even more critical view of questions in the Declaration which were not even put at Laeken. The question arises for me, as an elected representative from a medium-sized state, how the Convention will ensure that the big states will not dominate in the future. There has, unfortunately, been a very definite reason for these questions to be asked in recent weeks, and let nobody believe that there will be any less hankering after top-down management in a future Europe of nineteen small and medium-sized States and a small group of large and very large ones. One last point in the Laeken Declaration prompts me to vehement criticism here and now. The less than impressive, indeed uncaring, way in which the Council\'s General Secretariat handled the Convention on Fundamental Rights last time gives little hope for anything good from the Constitutional Convention. I can only hope that the Council\'s bureaucracy will prove us wrong by providing us with a quite outstanding service. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004373.txt','Mr President, I would like to make a correction to my statement on the EC/Switzerland agreement, because since 1 May this year, Mr Jörg Haider has been neither a member of the government nor the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party. As such, the grounds for the sanctions imposed by the 14+1 on one Member State should be rescinded immediately.','Mr President, I would like to make a correction to my statement on the EC/Switzerland agreement, because since 1 May this year, Mr Jörg Haider has been neither a member of the government nor the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party. As such, the grounds for the sanctions imposed by the 14+1 on one Member State should be rescinded immediately.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004384.txt','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604','In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'European_Economic_Community',13,1,'1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.'),(20.72326583694641,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_emission_standards',1,3,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Environment_Agency',2,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Environment_Agency',2,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Food_Safety_Authority',2,1,'10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Food_Safety_Authority',2,1,'1001233.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1001174.txt','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(7.013115794619964,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,2,'1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1001249.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(7.013115794619964,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,2,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(7.013115794619964,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,2,'100266.txt','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, the main aspects of European integration remained unresolved in Nice and will remain so for many years. However, the national governments\' claim to be the constitutional legislator of Europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of European unification. No, what they have done is to turn Europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. Amsterdam and Nice have given us a Europe of imperial rulers, a Europe of national administrations, not a Europe of political unification. What were they supposed to be doing? According to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. But no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of European unification. Back home from Nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given Europe, but on what they have withheld from Europe. They are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. This is not the Europe which we have been talking about for decades. It is a Europe of administrations. Now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'10029.txt','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?','Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council\'s presumption that it is Europe\'s legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission\'s attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament\'s side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004133.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as all the previous speakers have said, we face a number of challenges here. On the one hand, there is the greater integration of the markets, and on the other, there is economic globalisation, which is associated, not least, with an increase in corporate mergers, and finally, there is the challenge of enlargement. Competition is a key instrument to achieve our economic policy goals while upholding our principles within the framework of the ecological and social market economy to which Europe is committed. What is at stake is Europe\'s competitiveness in the global market. The issue is competition within Europe, which we urgently need to achieve the Lisbon goals and to strengthen the internal market. We do not want government monopolies to be replaced by private monopolies. We want competition on the basis of common rules. Competition as we define it safeguards and creates jobs, leads to consumer-friendly prices, and fosters the urgently needed dynamic process of renewal. We face the additional challenge of enlargement, which urgently needs mutual agreement on fundamental aspects of the competition rules among the Member States and with the accession countries. Commissioner, we naturally have wishes as well. We want a clear definition of the relevant market, especially in the era of globalisation. We regret that there is no separation between the investigating and decision-making authorities. We underline the need for the division of competence and coordination between the Commission and the national competition authorities to be shaped in a coherent way. We welcome the fact that venture capital investments no longer fall within the EU merger control arrangements. The fact that we must embark on our own process of renewal is apparent from the example of Austria, where, since 1 July, we have had a new competition … (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(7.013115794619964,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,2,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004495.txt','Mr President, institutional reform is on the agenda for Nice. Do you think that the Austrian model, i.e. bilateral majority resolutions, will be used in future as a way of passing resolutions which bypass the European institutions and of forming a new institution or a new group in order to circumvent unanimity in the Council? I have a supplementary question: how do you behave towards extreme left-wing parties and what is your opinion of them?','Mr President, institutional reform is on the agenda for Nice. Do you think that the Austrian model, i.e. bilateral majority resolutions, will be used in future as a way of passing resolutions which bypass the European institutions and of forming a new institution or a new group in order to circumvent unanimity in the Council? I have a supplementary question: how do you behave towards extreme left-wing parties and what is your opinion of them?'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(3.506557897309982,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(7.013115794619964,3.506557897309982,1000,'European_integration',30,2,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Investment_Bank',2,1,'1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Investment_Bank',2,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Neighbourhood_Policy',1,2,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001146.txt','On behalf of the Members belonging to the Austrian Freedom Party, I wish to explain our vote on the van Hulten report. The reason why we voted in favour of Amendment No 40 is that we advocate a new Bureau decision leaving no loopholes permitting additional mileage allowances and payments for extra time. We therefore advocate that the Bureau decision of 8 May 2003 should be revised to allow for the reimbursement of costs actually incurred. We voted against Amendment No 1, tabled by the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, believing as we do that it could be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the retention of the 28 May 2003 decision on costs, with its hidden lump-sum allowances. In the final vote, though, we nevertheless voted against the report, as it fails to deal with such issues as the demand for a single venue for the European Parliament or the abolition of allowances for Fridays in Strasbourg. Having considered all the arguments, I wish to emphasise that the decision to reimburse only those travel expenses that are actually incurred met with our wholehearted support, although, at the same time, I regret the failure to take on board many of the amendments.','On behalf of the Members belonging to the Austrian Freedom Party, I wish to explain our vote on the van Hulten report. The reason why we voted in favour of Amendment No 40 is that we advocate a new Bureau decision leaving no loopholes permitting additional mileage allowances and payments for extra time. We therefore advocate that the Bureau decision of 8 May 2003 should be revised to allow for the reimbursement of costs actually incurred. We voted against Amendment No 1, tabled by the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, believing as we do that it could be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the retention of the 28 May 2003 decision on costs, with its hidden lump-sum allowances. In the final vote, though, we nevertheless voted against the report, as it fails to deal with such issues as the demand for a single venue for the European Parliament or the abolition of allowances for Fridays in Strasbourg. Having considered all the arguments, I wish to emphasise that the decision to reimburse only those travel expenses that are actually incurred met with our wholehearted support, although, at the same time, I regret the failure to take on board many of the amendments.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001150.txt','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001186.txt','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100124.txt','For years now, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and this is something on which opinions can differ. They certainly can when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, the popular view will be that the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, is a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at the present time, being told that they will have to work for longer in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','For years now, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and this is something on which opinions can differ. They certainly can when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, the popular view will be that the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, is a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at the present time, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties; not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1001299.txt','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100143.txt','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three left overs plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three \"left overs\" plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100196.txt','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100199.txt','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'10021.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100218.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100233.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today; for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure; what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100270.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.','Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the Greens\' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts.   The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members\' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe\'s citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100275.txt','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100280.txt','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.','Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the Greens – the rightholder\'s status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The Greens, you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100287.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004109.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since I am relatively new to this House, though not new to politics, I would like to begin by saying something about myself. I once presented a youth petition for a referendum for service and justice and against privilege. I have helped to get rules on incompatibility tightened up, worked on new rules for the separation of politics and business, on measures and decrees for greater objectivity in the filling of public sector posts and the setting up of a group of experts for the shaping of a salary structure covering all public functions in my homeland, from the Federal President to the mayors of larger towns. The question of service and justice, mandate, profession and privilege runs through my entire political career and is always a question of the credibility of politics with the citizens. For this very reason I have argued for this question to be put to the Council, because since I have been in this House I have always had the feeling that there is no shortage of rumours, of mutual recriminations in Parliament and Council and between the groups, but no statute. The cause of our problem actually lies in the fact that, although we have all been elected to this House, we are not treated equally. Part of our problem is that we have 15 national electoral laws and no European electoral law, that we do not have one incompatibility rule but several different ones. That is one problem. We have already discussed this topic in 1998, 1999 and in April 2001. The President has told us that we have now almost reached our destination and we therefore wanted to know from the Council what matters are still outstanding and how we will reach our destination. Today again we get no answer from the Council – because that was no answer. I therefore ask myself how close we are to the destination if we cannot clearly say what the outstanding points are. At the same time, I witnessed a press conference this morning at which accusations were raised against everyone who mentions the Rothley report, which is a report from a committee and contains an opinion for the President. I consider such behaviour intolerable and the claims that were made to be untrue, and I ask myself: who is damaging the dignity of this House and the respect in which it is held? Is it those who make reference to a decision by a parliamentary committee or an opinion addressed to the presidency, or those who ignore that decision and want to start a parallel action? No national mandate can be compared with the mandate in the European Parliament. The time involved is greater, the distance is greater and we have less time at home than any of our counterparts. We have a decision from the Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which forms the basis for the President’s talks. We have a group of experts that has come to a conclusion so that no one can say we are arranging things to our own liking. We have the Rothley report and we have the legal situation where we adopt our statute and the Council approves it so it can enter into force. With this question we wanted greater transparency instead of rumours, greater clarity instead of recriminations. We wanted the Council’s answer, which sadly was no answer, to bring us a step closer to the decision we need. Nor do we want to be messed about by political opportunists or the Council’s indecision. I say to you, if we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. We must therefore resist opportunism and single-mindedly go the way we in this Parliament have decided on the basis of the law. We are of course always ready to split the report into a constitutional part and the remainder if they give us detailed reasons for doing so, but sadly this question went unanswered today as well. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since I am relatively new to this House, though not new to politics, I would like to begin by saying something about myself. I once presented a youth petition for a referendum for service and justice and against privilege. I have helped to get rules on incompatibility tightened up, worked on new rules for the separation of politics and business, on measures and decrees for greater objectivity in the filling of public sector posts and the setting up of a group of experts for the shaping of a salary structure covering all public functions in my homeland, from the Federal President to the mayors of larger towns. The question of service and justice, mandate, profession and privilege runs through my entire political career and is always a question of the credibility of politics with the citizens. For this very reason I have argued for this question to be put to the Council, because since I have been in this House I have always had the feeling that there is no shortage of rumours, of mutual recriminations in Parliament and Council and between the groups, but no statute. The cause of our problem actually lies in the fact that, although we have all been elected to this House, we are not treated equally. Part of our problem is that we have 15 national electoral laws and no European electoral law, that we do not have one incompatibility rule but several different ones. That is one problem. We have already discussed this topic in 1998, 1999 and in April 2001. The President has told us that we have now almost reached our destination and we therefore wanted to know from the Council what matters are still outstanding and how we will reach our destination. Today again we get no answer from the Council – because that was no answer. I therefore ask myself how close we are to the destination if we cannot clearly say what the outstanding points are. At the same time, I witnessed a press conference this morning at which accusations were raised against everyone who mentions the Rothley report, which is a report from a committee and contains an opinion for the President. I consider such behaviour intolerable and the claims that were made to be untrue, and I ask myself: who is damaging the dignity of this House and the respect in which it is held? Is it those who make reference to a decision by a parliamentary committee or an opinion addressed to the presidency, or those who ignore that decision and want to start a parallel action? No national mandate can be compared with the mandate in the European Parliament. The time involved is greater, the distance is greater and we have less time at home than any of our counterparts. We have a decision from the Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which forms the basis for the President’s talks. We have a group of experts that has come to a conclusion so that no one can say we are arranging things to our own liking. We have the Rothley report and we have the legal situation where we adopt our statute and the Council approves it so it can enter into force. With this question we wanted greater transparency instead of rumours, greater clarity instead of recriminations. We wanted the Council’s answer, which sadly was no answer, to bring us a step closer to the decision we need. Nor do we want to be messed about by political opportunists or the Council’s indecision. I say to you, if we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. We must therefore resist opportunism and single-mindedly go the way we in this Parliament have decided on the basis of the law. We are of course always ready to split the report into a constitutional part and the remainder if they give us detailed reasons for doing so, but sadly this question went unanswered today as well. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004114.txt','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.','– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish presidency and Mr Bertel Haarder for their presence and for the very ambitious programme to keep to the deadlines for enlargement. My first question is two-fold. Do you really believe that you can keep to the deadlines, given the big differences on agricultural policy? Will there be enough time between November and December to conclude these negotiations within the Europe of the 15? My second question concerns the so-called presidential decrees and the Beneš decrees. There are tensions between Germany and the Czech Republic, and also between Austria and the Czech Republic, concerning the recent and very bitter past. The past should not stand in the way of the present. For this reason I would like to ask you whether you would use your political influence, Prime Minister, to ease these tensions and to use your influence on the Czech government to respond to the European Parliament\'s report on the Czech Republic, which asks the Czech side to repeal the relevant decrees by the latest at the time of accession.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004140.txt','Mr President, I have a question. In the Committee on Budgets, the European Parliament has earmarked 10% of resources for small and medium-sized undertakings. So what is the picture in this new area, especially as regards cooperation between the research institutes, the major research institutes, between groups of undertakings, small businesses and individuals? Does the programme go into that question specifically?','Mr President, I have a question. In the Committee on Budgets, the European Parliament has earmarked 10% of resources for small and medium-sized undertakings. So what is the picture in this new area, especially as regards cooperation between the research institutes, the major research institutes, between groups of undertakings, small businesses and individuals? Does the programme go into that question specifically?'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004154.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004177.txt','Mr President, esteemed gentlemen from Portugal, especially the Council representatives, you face great expectations on our part. I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment. I refer to Eurodac. You will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system, as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications, in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and, above all, in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure. We voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument, together with an implementation committee, which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be. We were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality. Even in Tampere, we were of the opinion that Eurodac was becoming a reality. However, the Council then took another direction at the very next summit in December and took a huge step backwards by deciding what we had absolutely rejected, i.e. that the Council should continue to be responsible for implementation, that the regulatory committee would be attached to the Council and that, where possible, Gibraltar would still be used to exert pressure. This is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see. My urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures. If you tell us today how you wish to proceed, you will be doing us a great service. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed gentlemen from Portugal, especially the Council representatives, you face great expectations on our part. I should like to give you an example of one way in which you can meet these expectations relatively quickly in at least one small segment. I refer to Eurodac. You will remember that we decided with great expectations here in the European Parliament in December that Eurodac would become a reality as a regulation and as a system, as a Community instrument which we urgently need in order to prevent multiple asylum applications, in order to have an instrument to fight illegality and, above all, in order to set out clearly which Member State was responsible for implementing the asylum procedure. We voted clearly in favour of the introduction of this instrument, together with an implementation committee, which would be attached to the Commission in just the same way that a corresponding database would be. We were of the opinion that EURODAC was becoming a reality. Even in Tampere, we were of the opinion that Eurodac was becoming a reality. However, the Council then took another direction at the very next summit in December and took a huge step backwards by deciding what we had absolutely rejected, i.e. that the Council should continue to be responsible for implementation, that the regulatory committee would be attached to the Council and that, where possible, Gibraltar would still be used to exert pressure. This is a perfect example of the sort of work we do not want to see. My urgent request on behalf of the Group is that you do everything to ensure that Eurodac is implemented immediately as an instrument to fight asylum abuse and illegality and as an instrument to speed up asylum procedures. If you tell us today how you wish to proceed, you will be doing us a great service. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004179.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004183.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to offer heartfelt congratulations to Mr van Velzen. First of all, I would like to say that everything Wim van Velzen tackles turns out well, and his report is highly principled in its responsible treatment of the issue, which he makes his own. The communications industry is having an increasingly influential effect on our lives. It has an impact on the economy, the information society, global competition, Europe’s position in the world and employment.  However, the communications industry also has an effect on democracy because it enables more and more people to participate in the democratic process. It increases the transparency of political activity. We must continue the privatisation programme. Competition led to price reductions, rapid innovation and diversity of supply. The organisation principle underlying the social market economy demands liberalisation and competition on the one hand and necessary rules on the other, so as to be able to do justice to a sense of social responsibility. A great deal has been said. I should like to add just three points by way of conclusion. Communication also means information. I therefore call upon the European Parliament and the Commission to step up the involvement of all public bodies in their information campaigns and to enlighten them about the new media.  Secondly, I call upon all public bodies to get themselves an e-mail address, to acquire their own homepage, to own an SMS mobile phone, and to involve the constituency media in their communication by using the new media. I urge the European Parliament and all national parliaments to establish a file containing all the e-mail addresses of all the public bodies, because we should not just be drawing up framework directives, but actually making use of them as public bodies.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004201.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5% in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5%; in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004206.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, you started, Commissioner Solbes, by mentioning that you are working on getting the Treaty changed. I should like to ask you straight up: exactly what changes are you working on? How will the European Parliament and codecision and joint competence fit in with these changes? And for my second question. We all talk about growth and employment. We have the stability and growth pact. We have the internal market. We have the Lisbon process. What potential for coordination in these three agreements has still not been exhausted and how does the Treaty prevent these orders from being fulfilled?','Mr President, Commissioners, you started, Commissioner Solbes, by mentioning that you are working on getting the Treaty changed. I should like to ask you straight up: exactly what changes are you working on? How will the European Parliament and codecision and joint competence fit in with these changes? And for my second question. We all talk about growth and employment. We have the stability and growth pact. We have the internal market. We have the Lisbon process. What potential for coordination in these three agreements has still not been exhausted and how does the Treaty prevent these orders from being fulfilled?'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100421.txt','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)','Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the fathers of Europe at Laeken – there were probably no mothers there – gave the Convention on the future of Europe something more than a year in which to achieve a big success in the process of making Europe more visible, by drafting the text of a new constitutional treaty. A quite disproportionately small part of the Convention\'s work will be devoted to preparing solutions to the issues now raised in the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report – a uniform system for elections to Parliament, which will then truly merit the name of ‘European’, solutions under the heading of ‘regionalisation’ to the system\'s proximity – or lack of it – to the citizens, and to the problem of how to make it possible to use the elections to the European Parliament to reach a decision on how to give Europe a face, that is, by the direct election of the President of the Commission. There is, alas, nothing of any real substance on the subject of European lists. Work on these few topics has to date taken the Council and Parliament almost thirty years, not always with much by way of results. Vive la différence is still the watchword for the organising of elections to the European Parliament. Quite apart from many other aspects, it is precisely this bewildering array of proceedings every fifth June that makes it easy for the European public to regard European elections as unimportant or incomprehensible. Turnouts of under 50% are their reaction to this deplorable state of affairs. What is to be done under such circumstances? Do we put a brave face on a bad job, rejoice in small improvements, thank the rapporteur for his good work and await the miracle that the Convention will bring to pass in fifteen months\' time, changing everything and making it better? I accept the compromise and join in thanking our rapporteur Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, and I call on everyone to wish the Convention and its members success in making the impossible possible, giving Europe a comprehensible and workable structure that the citizen can understand, with electoral laws by which the public will know themselves to be challenged to join in deciding what the future of our shared European home should be. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004217.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I want to firmly reject Mr Sylla’s comment that we have a politically-led judiciary in our country, in the Republic of Austria. (Applause)  Secondly I want to note that there are many urgent resolutions that deserve to be discussed in this House. The urgency on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna, tabled by Dr Swoboda, does not deserve any urgent discussion. It was prompted by a purely personal matter concerning Professor Pelinka. He resigned from the Centre’s Management Board voluntarily. The real reason was that he refused to do something which is a matter of course, which is the duty of every Austrian citizen, namely to render account of his activity if he is being paid for it by the Austrian Government. Let someone tell me what that has to do with the European Parliament. So it is easy to understand why we will not endorse recital A of this motion for a resolution and cannot share the concern about this matter. It should also be noted that the Monitoring Centre on racism is based in Vienna, not least thanks to the commitment of the present Chancellor and then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel, and that we are proud to give a home in Vienna to this kind of institution that keeps a watchful eye on xenophobia and racism in all the European countries. For the Centre’s report indicates that no one country is immune from such tendencies. For the rest, Austria has very strict regulations against neo-Nazism and its reactivation. Perhaps it needs pointing out that one sad case, the Omufuma case, was a case that a Socialist minister of the interior had to answer for. Clearly Dr Swoboda was also aware of the embarrassing nature of his first motion, otherwise the basically reasonable and considerably weaker motion for a resolution we can all support would not have come into being. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I want to firmly reject Mr Sylla’s comment that we have a politically-led judiciary in our country, in the Republic of Austria. (Applause)  Secondly I want to note that there are many urgent resolutions that deserve to be discussed in this House. The urgency on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna, tabled by Dr Swoboda, does not deserve any urgent discussion. It was prompted by a purely personal matter concerning Professor Pelinka. He resigned from the Centre’s Management Board voluntarily. The real reason was that he refused to do something which is a matter of course, which is the duty of every Austrian citizen, namely to render account of his activity if he is being paid for it by the Austrian Government. Let someone tell me what that has to do with the European Parliament. So it is easy to understand why we will not endorse recital A of this motion for a resolution and cannot share the concern about this matter. It should also be noted that the Monitoring Centre on racism is based in Vienna, not least thanks to the commitment of the present Chancellor and then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel, and that we are proud to give a home in Vienna to this kind of institution that keeps a watchful eye on xenophobia and racism in all the European countries. For the Centre’s report indicates that no one country is immune from such tendencies. For the rest, Austria has very strict regulations against neo-Nazism and its reactivation. Perhaps it needs pointing out that one sad case, the Omufuma case, was a case that a Socialist minister of the interior had to answer for. Clearly Dr Swoboda was also aware of the embarrassing nature of his first motion, otherwise the basically reasonable and considerably weaker motion for a resolution we can all support would not have come into being. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council\'s turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004237.txt','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.','Mr President, today\'s vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.'),(4.127136385039091,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,2,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004275.txt','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004278.txt','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.','The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004288.txt','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?','Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission\'s work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004295.txt','Mr President, on a point of order. Questions to the Council are no longer being answered in the time stipulated. Despite being warned on two occasions, the Council has not answered European Parliament questions. Would you please ensure that the Council fulfils its obligations in this area as well?','Mr President, on a point of order. Questions to the Council are no longer being answered in the time stipulated. Despite being warned on two occasions, the Council has not answered European Parliament questions. Would you please ensure that the Council fulfils its obligations in this area as well?'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004305.txt','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?','Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cardiff process is essential for sustainable development. The European Parliament, and especially its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has already carried out very good preliminary work here, and I think that in this House, transparency and, of course, dialogue can really be taken for granted. We very often hold hearings here and make every effort to maximise dialogue with non-government organisations. My question relates to this issue. We have just concluded the WTO negotiations. What opportunities do you see to coordinate the Cardiff process in consultation with the WTO organisations?'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004306.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!','Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council\'s request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004317.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100434.txt','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004360.txt','Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.','Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004372.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, world trade is becoming increasingly significant. With the new communications technologies, it is possible, with a click on the computer, to conclude contracts worldwide or enter into legal transactions within a very short period of time. So it is important, that in Europe, we give far more priority to the WTO negotiations in future, and discuss the fine detail to a greater extent as well. In my view, the European Parliament has carried out very significant preparatory work in this area, but we should also give careful thought to the structure of our economy. In Europe at present, we have around 16 million SMEs with a workforce of less than 250 persons; these SMEs generate 60% of GNP and provide 60% of jobs. So the WTO negotiations are extremely important for SMEs in particular. I believe that special priority should be given to the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of protected rights. Here, a key task is to examine how we should define the level of inventiveness for patents, for example. Some countries require a very low level of inventiveness and, therefore, grant a great many patents very quickly. Other countries in Europe are very strict, and start off by making checks worldwide to establish whether the level of inventiveness is adequate. That is why it is necessary, in my view, to have this debate. In this context, industrial applicability – which is also a condition of patentability – should quite obviously be discussed at the WTO negotiations as well, so that we can ensure that disputes in this area are avoided. I also believe that the precautionary principle is very important for our future. It is also important, however, to make product safety a priority for SMEs, and ensure that with third-party certification, de facto exemption from liability can be achieved.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100440.txt','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.','Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004402.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Brazil. I wonder why they met in parallel, and thousands of kilometres apart, rather than together. The European Parliament\'s debate today, with its joint discussion, gives a good example, as these two subject areas do not absolutely have to be in contradiction to each other. If we want to make use of the opportunities afforded by globalisation and to minimise its risks, we need to be prepared to think in an integrated way rather than score points off each other. This combined approach is in line with the ecologically responsible market economy, which is our model for the political order. We are in favour of the market, but the market has its limits when it comes to the areas of social responsibility and environmental sustainability. This joint debate accords with the strategies we formulated in Lisbon and Barcelona, and with our principle that business creates work and that everything that creates work is society\'s business. In his closing address, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, called for a war on poverty. We share the belief that globalisation must go hand in hand with great efforts at fighting poverty. Our resolution therefore lends weight to our endorsement of the goals of the United Nations\' millennial declaration of war on poverty and calls on the Commission to submit an annual report to us on what progress has been made worldwide in the war on poverty and what contribution we have made to it. We are drawing closer together. State borders, time zones, distance and size divide us less and less as time goes on. We are becoming ever more dependent on each other. We bear ever greater responsibility for each other in global terms. When others are stricken, we are affected. Globalisation is happening, and what matters is that we make good use of the opportunities with which it presents us and minimise its risks, across both hemispheres. This is where we need Europe to have more clout on the world stage. We need a world economic and social order that is fairer and more just. Issues relating to the global social and economic order are matters of European domestic policy in the same way as European policy is part of national domestic policy. We need Europe to be stronger and more determined. Our continent has an answer to worldwide globalisation – that answer is Europe. We have to do our homework for ourselves. The Lisbon strategy is the right way ahead, but we have to turn from its lofty aims to the clear definition of specific objectives, laying down timetables and responsibilities. On our continent too, a place must be found for our common objectives in all government programmes and work programmes. That is why we emphasise the fact that the potential of the internal market has not yet been exhausted, that unemployment rates are too high and that we have to put all our efforts into reducing them here as much as anywhere else. We call on the Council to require every single Member State to undertake budgetary and economic reform along the lines recommended by the ECOFIN Council. Lisbon and the Internal Market are the tools we need in order to respond to globalisation and to discharge our obligations to the world at large. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004420.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004437.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing; on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another; it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer; our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this directive is, without doubt, the most important directive for the small and family-run businesses of Europe. A good day’s work deserves a good day’s pay. But some have had to wait for it longer than others. The stronger the partner, the more power he has to make a business wait. Here, for the first time, we have a regulation which ensures that the company’s liquidity is secured once the service has been provided, and within a foreseeable period of time. I am delighted that we are debating today in the small circle, because you can see that this directive is totally uncontested and that the European Parliament stands fully behind this directive. We know that some 450,000 jobs are lost every year as the result of late payments. When we talk about job security and job creation, then we have a very important and crucial directive here which helps us to secure 450,000 jobs a year in Europe. That deserves the headlines in the press but, as you know, the fight for jobs is already taken for granted. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is making such an important contribution to this. This initiative was intensively promoted to start with by Marianne Thyssen, Mr Folias and Mr Murphy and we are proud of such an excellent result in the House. Payment within 30 days, precautions to ensure that payments are actually made and that the company receives the money within 90 days. It is a sensational result. Congratulations! I am proud to be a member of this Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, this directive is, without doubt, the most important directive for the small and family-run businesses of Europe. A good day’s work deserves a good day’s pay. But some have had to wait for it longer than others. The stronger the partner, the more power he has to make a business wait. Here, for the first time, we have a regulation which ensures that the company’s liquidity is secured once the service has been provided, and within a foreseeable period of time. I am delighted that we are debating today in the small circle, because you can see that this directive is totally uncontested and that the European Parliament stands fully behind this directive. We know that some 450,000 jobs are lost every year as the result of late payments. When we talk about job security and job creation, then we have a very important and crucial directive here which helps us to secure 450,000 jobs a year in Europe. That deserves the headlines in the press but, as you know, the fight for jobs is already taken for granted. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is making such an important contribution to this. This initiative was intensively promoted to start with by Marianne Thyssen, Mr Folias and Mr Murphy and we are proud of such an excellent result in the House. Payment within 30 days, precautions to ensure that payments are actually made and that the company receives the money within 90 days. It is a sensational result. Congratulations! I am proud to be a member of this Parliament.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004479.txt','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004494.txt','Madam President, I am absolutely amazed that the Council does not wish to concern itself with the sanctions the Fourteen are taking against one Member State. The European Parliament is best placed to know that refusing to engage in dialogue is not the way to solve problems. ***','Madam President, I am absolutely amazed that the Council does not wish to concern itself with the sanctions the Fourteen are taking against one Member State. The European Parliament is best placed to know that refusing to engage in dialogue is not the way to solve problems. ***'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004544.txt','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.','Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004546.txt','Mr President, the vote on Sellafield was a first for the European Parliament. I think it is the first time that the European Parliament has spoken in favour of uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. I believe that the Council should, as a matter of urgency, and before the first accessions take place, resolve to draw up and implement such safety standards.','Mr President, the vote on Sellafield was a first for the European Parliament. I think it is the first time that the European Parliament has spoken in favour of uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. I believe that the Council should, as a matter of urgency, and before the first accessions take place, resolve to draw up and implement such safety standards.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004560.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the green box, and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory think global, act local can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the WTO working group and as someone responsible, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises, I can only congratulate the Commission on this report and on this initiative, because it is far-sighted in already anticipating developments, which bodes well for the future. In the WTO negotiations we will come under strong pressure to reduce export refunds, and cuts in this sector will be very likely. That is why it is very important to achieve a balance here, and this can be developed very effectively through the promotion and publicity measures. This sector is, of course, included in the \"green box\", and it would, of course, make it possible for us to present European products on the world market in an entirely new and much more intensive way. I see great opportunities for quality European products here. Ultimately this is also support for rural areas, on which, after all, we spend 10% more today, a sign that these regional economies should also be receiving more support, so that, on the one hand, the theory \"think global, act local\" can very well be asserted but, on the other, the world market is not disregarded either. It is precisely in the food sector – but also in the agricultural non-food products sector – that we have good opportunities in the future here, and we should therefore make the most of them. This means, then, that, in the future, the existing 12 categories of products will not be the only ones to be the subjects of promotional campaigns but that the arrangements will be extended to all agricultural products. So, Mrs Lulling, there will be opportunities here in the future not only for grape juice but also for wine. We should also set ourselves a target. We ought, in fact, to ensure that food production in Europe has an aim, and this actually follows on very well from the preceding debate. You see, we want to use our food to keep people healthy into old age. We want to stay healthy, and food is the overall basis for healthy living. That is why I am also pleased that, this week in the European Parliament, we have set up a working group on biotechnology. We want to address health-related issues in detail. We also believe that particular account ought to be taken here of organic farming and production and that, of course, Europe will be able to make considerable progress on the international scene with its brands and designations of origin. A trend which has become increasingly pronounced recently is e-commerce. I believe that here too there is scope for us to take action with agricultural products. It is expected that, by the year 2003, 80% of the European population will in all likelihood be connected to the Internet. Obviously, this represents a great opportunity for rural areas because the physical distance separating them from the large centres will become insignificant, and new opportunities are emerging which, at the end of the day, need to be taken. Another important area is, of course, further education and training. I believe that where marketing, sales and training programmes are concerned, life-long learning ought to take centre stage much more, because it is precisely the new technologies – handling product promotion using modern logistics – which will open up entirely new possibilities. Cooperation between industry, agriculture, trade and consumers is therefore of paramount importance here, and I would be glad if we were able to achieve new standards of cooperation in the future.'),(4.127136385039091,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,2,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004572.txt','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term; support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways; such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004583.txt','Mr President, I want to ask about Europe’s next big ‘referendum’, namely the elections to the European Parliament on 13 June next year. What is the Presidency contemplating doing to increase voter turnout on that day, along with their understanding of the European Union?','Mr President, I want to ask about Europe’s next big ‘referendum’, namely the elections to the European Parliament on 13 June next year. What is the Presidency contemplating doing to increase voter turnout on that day, along with their understanding of the European Union?'),(4.127136385039091,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,2,'1004588.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'100459.txt','Madam President, I deeply regret the fact that I must now recommend to my group that it reject my own report in the final vote, because I, like my group, really do not think that it is fair for a national problem to be brought before the European Parliament. (Applause)','Madam President, I deeply regret the fact that I must now recommend to my group that it reject my own report in the final vote, because I, like my group, really do not think that it is fair for a national problem to be brought before the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004599.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004625.txt','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas; how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.'),(2.0635681925195457,2.0635681925195457,1000,'European_Parliament',127,1,'1004634.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Swoboda’s report on the Stability Pact   for South-East Europe has two essential objectives, one being to make the Stability Pact more stable, and the other to take Parliament’s views into account and involve it in the process of appointing the special coordinator. On this I am in full agreement with Mr Swoboda. Hitherto, the Coordinator has been appointed for only six months at a time, but now he is to hold office for a year. We regard this as progress. Parliament’s involvement in the appointment process as a budgetary and political authority is also to be welcomed. It would be desirable if this process of appointing the coordinator of the Stability Pact each year were to be a speedy one, and what the Commissioner has said leads me to believe that there is the will to make it so. In every instance, the parliamentary dimension must be built up, and in saying that I am referring not only to the European Parliament, but also and especially to the regional parliaments in the countries to which the Stability Pact applies. We can never do enough to involve members of the regional parliaments in the important work of stabilising the Western Balkans. The Stability Pact and its present coordinator Erhard Busek have already had a great effect – something that has been noted with appreciation, and rightly so – on both trade and investment, or in the use of several infrastructural measures to combat crime. Much, though, remains to be done, and I believe that the Swoboda report, to the content of which we will be giving our full support tomorrow, will make an important contribution to this.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development',8,1,'1004151.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development',8,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development',8,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development',8,1,'1004272.txt','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.','– ( DE ) Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development',8,1,'1004447.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development',8,1,'1004466.txt','Madam President, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are also very keen to put a stop to fraud in all areas in the Union. (Applause)  We still do not have any right of codetermination in agriculture, which is why our only option is to refer this report back to committee and I urge the House to vote in favour of my motion.','Madam President, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are also very keen to put a stop to fraud in all areas in the Union. (Applause)  We still do not have any right of codetermination in agriculture, which is why our only option is to refer this report back to committee and I urge the House to vote in favour of my motion.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development',8,1,'1004472.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat. The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal. I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work. I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points. The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward. But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small. This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less. The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes. A distinction between the two cannot really be justified. I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas. Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends, which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium. On the contrary, there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe. If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector, we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas, such as beef and veal, or they will go out of production altogether. Such a policy would be ill-advised. Finally, I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative, but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional. I therefore hope, Mr President, that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Agriculture_and_Rural_Development',8,1,'1004579.txt','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.','Mr President, I am really pleased that this report incorporates the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that it must in future be possible to completely exempt from consumer taxes biofuels and petrol manufactured from biological materials. However, it really breaks my heart that this is to be possible only up to 2010. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce such a tax exemption after this period, as the manufacturers need a degree of certainty in order to be able to make the necessary investments. Biodiesel represents an important contribution to attaining the Kyoto target and gives us independence from fossil sources of energy. I want, finally, to emphasise that the production of renewable raw materials will secure existing and new jobs in rural areas, including in the run-up to enlargement.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgetary_Control',2,1,'1001185.txt','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgetary_Control',2,1,'100458.txt','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets',8,1,'1001111.txt','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets',8,1,'1001155.txt','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets',8,1,'1004140.txt','Mr President, I have a question. In the Committee on Budgets, the European Parliament has earmarked 10% of resources for small and medium-sized undertakings. So what is the picture in this new area, especially as regards cooperation between the research institutes, the major research institutes, between groups of undertakings, small businesses and individuals? Does the programme go into that question specifically?','Mr President, I have a question. In the Committee on Budgets, the European Parliament has earmarked 10% of resources for small and medium-sized undertakings. So what is the picture in this new area, especially as regards cooperation between the research institutes, the major research institutes, between groups of undertakings, small businesses and individuals? Does the programme go into that question specifically?'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets',8,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets',8,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets',8,1,'1004500.txt','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets',8,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Budgets',8,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs',8,1,'1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs',8,1,'1001298.txt','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another; surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary; avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs',8,1,'100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs',8,1,'100279.txt','Madam President, allow me, without mentioning this proposal – of which I am in favour – to make just one small remark: I am campaigning somewhat for the respect of the large groups. It is the responsibility of the first vice-chairman to represent a committee chairman, not of a member of his group. I would ask Mr Corbett to show the office of vice-chairman in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs this minimum respect in future. (Applause)','Madam President, allow me, without mentioning this proposal – of which I am in favour – to make just one small remark: I am campaigning somewhat for the respect of the large groups. It is the responsibility of the first vice-chairman to represent a committee chairman, not of a member of his group. I would ask Mr Corbett to show the office of vice-chairman in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs this minimum respect in future. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs',8,1,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs',8,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs',8,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Constitutional_Affairs',8,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004142.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004234.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle; I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004456.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.','Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004460.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Echerer most sincerely for the good teamwork and the expertise that characterises it. This report is the latest reason why I will not be the only one to be sorry that you, Mrs Echerer, will not be standing for this Parliament again. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted my opinion unanimously and because of the good teamwork is also able to vote in favour of the Echerer report. In drafting this opinion for the forthcoming debate, including that with the Commission, I and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were concerned primarily with five particular points. Firstly, monopolies must always be exceptions to competition law and there must be sound reasons for them. We know that collecting societies are organised differently in the various Member States and in many they have a monopoly over particular categories of works. There is therefore a definite need to look more closely at, or review, the territorial monopoly structures, but not to reject them outright. Secondly, it is in our opinion important to have transparency in collecting societies, such as showing administrative and licence costs separately in the accounts. Something needs to be done here. Thirdly – and this is related to the second point – there is in many countries no supervision of collecting societies. I therefore expressly welcome paragraph 49 of the Echerer Report with its call for efficient independent control mechanisms in all Member States. Fourthly, my suggestion for a public register that could be accessed electronically, containing all right-holders represented by collecting societies, would make for greater clarity and improved transparency and would certainly also simplify cross-border activity and increase competition. Fifthly and finally, where the fragmentation of rights gives rise to high transaction costs, the introduction of a one-stop shop system could be a more efficient and cheaper way for users and exploiters of rights. I ask the Commission to take the contents of the Echerer report on board in its deliberations. Once again my sincere congratulations and I ask you to vote in favour of this report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I would like first of all to thank Mrs Echerer most sincerely for the good teamwork and the expertise that characterises it. This report is the latest reason why I will not be the only one to be sorry that you, Mrs Echerer, will not be standing for this Parliament again. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted my opinion unanimously and because of the good teamwork is also able to vote in favour of the Echerer report. In drafting this opinion for the forthcoming debate, including that with the Commission, I and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were concerned primarily with five particular points. Firstly, monopolies must always be exceptions to competition law and there must be sound reasons for them. We know that collecting societies are organised differently in the various Member States and in many they have a monopoly over particular categories of works. There is therefore a definite need to look more closely at, or review, the territorial monopoly structures, but not to reject them outright. Secondly, it is in our opinion important to have transparency in collecting societies, such as showing administrative and licence costs separately in the accounts. Something needs to be done here. Thirdly – and this is related to the second point – there is in many countries no supervision of collecting societies. I therefore expressly welcome paragraph 49 of the Echerer Report with its call for efficient independent control mechanisms in all Member States. Fourthly, my suggestion for a public register that could be accessed electronically, containing all right-holders represented by collecting societies, would make for greater clarity and improved transparency and would certainly also simplify cross-border activity and increase competition. Fifthly and finally, where the fragmentation of rights gives rise to high transaction costs, the introduction of a one-stop shop system could be a more efficient and cheaper way for users and exploiters of rights. I ask the Commission to take the contents of the Echerer report on board in its deliberations. Once again my sincere congratulations and I ask you to vote in favour of this report.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004580.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004600.txt','Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission\'s document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.','Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission\'s document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.'),(4.017383521075972,4.017383521075972,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Economic_and_Monetary_Affairs',18,1,'1004637.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur and everyone involved in this report. I should also like to thank the Commissioner, who held a plethora of individual talks for the purpose of hearing our views and arguing his own. That alone illustrates how sensitive this issue is. We have before us a regulation which contains a derogation from competition law. We believe that this derogation cannot be maintained in the long term. Anyone who takes the view that freedom of establishment is one of the four freedoms and that competition is a fundamental factor in strengthening the internal market must say yes to both and to the basic idea behind Commissioner Monti\'s proposal. And we shall do so. But the point is, how can we bring the interested parties around to the idea of freedom of establishment and more competition? The interested parties are the manufacturers, consumers and, in between them, the small and medium-sized businesses represented by dealers, workshops and sales. We believe that it therefore comes down to the how and when of the changeover. What Parliament has proposed are longer transitional periods, greater legal certainty and measures to maintain confidence, a yes to competition and protection for investments and new regulations for terminating agreements, even going as far as compensation if good faith is abused, together with a longer period and stronger form of notice. Commissioner, we have said it all, the transitional period until 2005 and a facility for review were the core elements of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. What we now ask is that you accept that we support your basic line but that you meet us half way on implementation on the basis of Parliament\'s resolution.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Employment_and_Social_Affairs',3,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Employment_and_Social_Affairs',3,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Employment_and_Social_Affairs',3,1,'1004600.txt','Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission\'s document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.','Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission\'s document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs',4,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs',4,1,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(11.042921835724492,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs',4,2,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs',4,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'100284.txt','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.','– draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market . – (DE) Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mr Schmitt, not just for his report, but also for the excellent cooperation and for what he has just said to us. He speaks from the heart. Common principles were indeed seen as more important than individual political objectives. I should also like briefly to thank my committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the confidence which it placed in a neo-parliamentarian, someone who has just climbed on board, in entrusting me with this sensitive issue. The right to asylum is enshrined in various treaties but, because of different definitions and interpretations by national courts, the law is applied to differing degrees. This obviously contradicts the principles and objectives of the EC Treaty, Title 4 of which refers to asylum policy as an important means of establishing an area of peace, security and justice. Establishing a uniform asylum law and harmonised implementing provisions is therefore a Community objective. The document presented by the Commission starts by explaining that legally binding instruments need to be adopted for the asylum procedure. Eight specific points are dealt with: Communitisation of the Dublin system, EURODAC, minimum standards for admission, minimum standards for recognising refugees, minimum standards for granting or withdrawing refugee status, complementary, subsidiary protection, temporary protection for displaced persons and, last but not least, a division of the burden. The Committee on Legal Affairs has also achieved a consensus which pleases me greatly; here too individual political objectives had to be put aside and we drafted a good opinion which was useful for Mr Schmitt’s report. I think that we shall have a highly constructive vote in favour of our common ideal tomorrow. I wish us all the courage and strength to push forward on the final point which you addressed.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'1004248.txt','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs',9,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Parliament_Committee_on_Petitions',1,1,'100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Parliament_election,_2004',2,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Parliament_election,_2004',2,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Party_(Cyprus)',2,1,'1004198.txt','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.','Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Party_(Cyprus)',2,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Patent_Convention',3,1,'1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Patent_Convention',3,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'European_Patent_Convention',3,1,'1004249.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Patent_Office',2,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_Patent_Office',2,1,'1004249.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!'),(7.633425651223642,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,2,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(7.633425651223642,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,2,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'100426.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004349.txt','Madam President, I just wanted to explain that this directive on a uniform bus for Europe was rejected by all groups at first reading. Then there were 90 pages today there are 150. That is why the European People’s Party has brought in Amendment No 9. I support referring this draft directive back to committee because, after the standardisation of the European cucumber, we do not want the standardisation of the European bus as well. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, I just wanted to explain that this directive on a uniform bus for Europe was rejected by all groups at first reading. Then there were 90 pages; today there are 150. That is why the European People’s Party has brought in Amendment No 9. I support referring this draft directive back to committee because, after the standardisation of the European cucumber, we do not want the standardisation of the European bus as well. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. (Applause from the right)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004357.txt','Mr President, I note with some surprise that I am bringing up the rear, despite having been the first to request the floor in writing. Secondly, I should also like to note that, broadly speaking, my Group supports the Haarder report and expressly highlights the fact that there was excellent cooperation with the rapporteur. At last we have before us a report which duly deals with the subject, the stated period and enforceable rights. Hence our support in principle. We voted against it, however, because two points were accepted by the majority of the House I refer to points 53 and 54, which tackle the issue of the family and the excessive support or special support for all alternative types of partnership. We in the European People’s Party see the family as a value per se, as the cornerstone of society, if you like, as the heart of society, and cannot accept that alternative life styles should be specially fostered and set above the family, which we see as the nucleus of our society. However, with these points and the majority decision by Parliament, we now have a situation in points 53 and 54 in which alternative lifestyles enjoy special favour and are placed above the family, as a result of which we find it impossible to vote for the report as a whole. (Applause)','Mr President, I note with some surprise that I am bringing up the rear, despite having been the first to request the floor in writing. Secondly, I should also like to note that, broadly speaking, my Group supports the Haarder report and expressly highlights the fact that there was excellent cooperation with the rapporteur. At last we have before us a report which duly deals with the subject, the stated period and enforceable rights. Hence our support in principle. We voted against it, however, because two points were accepted by the majority of the House; I refer to points 53 and 54, which tackle the issue of the family and the excessive support or special support for all alternative types of partnership. We in the European People’s Party see the family as a value per se, as the cornerstone of society, if you like, as the heart of society, and cannot accept that alternative life styles should be specially fostered and set above the family, which we see as the nucleus of our society. However, with these points and the majority decision by Parliament, we now have a situation in points 53 and 54 in which alternative lifestyles enjoy special favour and are placed above the family, as a result of which we find it impossible to vote for the report as a whole. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004367.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'100442.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the European People\'s Party support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur\'s efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004479.txt','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(3.816712825611821,3.816712825611821,1000,'European_Peoples_Party',22,1,'1004621.txt','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(8.399410155739854,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,2,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'100426.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.','Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the Greens and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You Greens want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.'),(8.399410155739854,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,2,'1004260.txt','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.','Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party/European Democrats, I would like to thank the rapporteur and to welcome this directive. We all ask that the formal procedure following Parliament’s decision be carried out as quickly as possible, and that the directive be quickly transposed so that we can successfully conclude this discussion process which was initiated by the Commission in 1994. This directive is significant in four ways. It is significant in terms of industrial policy, competition policy, security policy and consumer policy. This directive relates to all four policy areas. We can all still remember the dramatic accidents that have taken place on and as a result of cableway installations. They are largely responsible for the fact that calls for uniform safety standards have become more vociferous. These calls have also become increasingly topical. I am therefore very pleased, and the preceding speaker also touched on this matter briefly, that it will not only apply to those people who are actually in the cable car, but also to those who disembark at the station or who are waiting to depart. Uniform Europe-wide safety standards are necessary in order to protect both the safety of passengers and also the competitiveness of the European cableways industry in the international market. Cableway installations have undergone highly specialised, state-of-the-art improvements. Cableways are an important economic factor in many Member States, particularly in the Alpine region. I am pleased to be able to refer to the fact, in my maiden speech to this House in plenary session, that in my own country, Austria, cableways are a cornerstone of tourism and consequently, of the Austrian national economy. I would just like to emphasise the importance of this directive. In my country alone, we have nine million passengers who take around 526 million trips with 255 cableway companies and, in economic terms, this represents a total turnover of 10.8 billion Austrian schillings. The directive represents a competitive advantage and raises the competitiveness of European and particularly Austrian cableway companies. The directive is aiming to harmonise safety standards for passengers. It aims to boost the free movement of goods, that is to say the internal market, as far as the cableway industry is concerned. It will consolidate this sector as an integral part of the national economy. Uniform and simplified procedures, a relieving of the burden on the authorities as well as the removal of procedural steps are all part of this directive. I welcome the fact that, by means of this directive, it is going to be possible to bring an initiative that was introduced during the Austrian Presidency to a successful conclusion in terms of consumer safety and competitiveness.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004367.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to briefly discuss the area of freedom, security and justice and the key aspects thereof, and on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, I can safely say that the key aspects have been very well-chosen. You certainly give the main challenges the attention they deserve. One of the key aspects you mention is asylum and migration. It is absolutely essential that this should be so, for we do not have minimum standards in matters of asylum, nor have we taken the first steps towards implementing the Dublin Convention or made real progress towards implementing EURODAC.  Tackling organised crime and the prevention thereof is another of the key aspects you cited. That too is absolutely essential, given that as much as 25 to 30% of crime can be attributed to organised crime. This is another area where we need to go one step further and quickly get on with setting up the European police academy, for example, so as to ensure that officers are trained to the same standard across-the-board. Another key aspect you mentioned was the need to combat money laundering. You have our full backing on this as well, for money laundering is partly what motivates organised crime. The fourth point you touched on was judicial cooperation. Here, I am sorry to say, we are lagging behind police cooperation by some 10 to 20 years, and we urgently need a catching-up programme. You have our full support, but I want to make the point that such issues have come up for discussion every year. As far as we are concerned, the crucial step forward has been that we now have a scoreboard that actually lays down responsibilities and timeframes, and affords us the opportunity to undertake checks twice a year and demand that responsibilities be carried out to completion. You have our support in matters of transparency and when it comes to the momentum created at Tampere, which we want to keep going, and you have our support because there is a possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the Council. But at the end of the day, we can only hope to put the scoreboard, and all that goes with it, into practice, if all the Council representatives actually abide by the spirit of the treaties and the treaties themselves. Only then will it be possible for you to implement your proposals, in conjunction with us, to good effect. Anyhow, you can count on our support !'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004418.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters\' trails and so create greater security in Europe.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004455.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.'),(8.399410155739854,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,2,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'European_Peoples_Party_Group',15,1,'1004621.txt','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.','Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Police_College',1,1,'1004282.txt','Mr President, in connection with the European Police College, I would point out that what is particularly important is to combat crime in the cities. As MEPs, we ourselves are very often concerned by crime. I hope that, in this area, the College will provide a starting point for the future.','Mr President, in connection with the European Police College, I would point out that what is particularly important is to combat crime in the cities. As MEPs, we ourselves are very often concerned by crime. I hope that, in this area, the College will provide a starting point for the future.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Public_Prosecutor',4,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Public_Prosecutor',4,1,'100152.txt','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Public_Prosecutor',4,1,'100186.txt','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Public_Prosecutor',4,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Refugee_Fund',1,1,'1004366.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make use of today\'s debate, in the presence both of the Commissioner and the ambitious Council Presidency, to direct our attention to the potential influx of a massive number of refugees, triggered by a war in Iraq that we hope will not happen, but is nonetheless possible, and the related subject of the Refugee Fund, which was set up two years ago. It makes it possible for us, in accordance with Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund, to take special steps in the event of a mass influx of refugees. What I now propose is that you, as representatives of the Commission and of the Council, make every conceivable preparation for such an eventuality, so that the Member States may not be left to their own devices, but may be supported in the manner provided for in Article 6. You should be allocating up to 80% of the funds required, but this requires that you take the necessary precautions right now. The Member States are to be urged to take the necessary precautions by appointing authorities to which the Commission may have recourse. I am addressing both the Council and the Commission when I propose that consideration should be given to setting aside funds for eventual allocation to international aid organisations providing the relevant help on the spot, which should be the primary and most efficient form of aid. I propose, thirdly, that you should not leave the Member States to deal with this potentially tragic situation on their own, but should, in advance of events, give consideration to spreading the load of dealing with the people involved, as we know that a few countries were obliged to shoulder most of the burdens resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. We should be learning from our mistakes and preventing such a thing from recurring in future, so we should be preparing to apportion the people involved to individual Member States. I would very much like to know how, and to what extent, you envisage acting upon these proposals.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_School',1,1,'1004154.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Security_Strategy',1,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_social_model',2,1,'1004234.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle; I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'European_social_model',2,1,'1004440.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause)  Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Southern_Observatory',1,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Space_Agency',1,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_superstate',1,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_System_of_Accounts',1,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001102.txt','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages; in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001108.txt','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001109.txt','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless unsatisfactory from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless \"unsatisfactory\" from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause; it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100111.txt','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001114.txt','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001120.txt','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001123.txt','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea; that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001126.txt','I rejected the report on the ‘Czech Republic’s application for membership of the European Union and the stage of negotiations reached’ because Parliament rejected the amendment submitted by the honourable member Matti Wuori. A disproportionately large number of breakdowns occurred during the preparations for putting the nuclear reactor Temelin into operation. In addition, environmental sustainability tests are not being carried out to an adequate extent, and the central parts of the reactor have not undergone crucial monitoring by international experts.','I rejected the report on the ‘Czech Republic’s application for membership of the European Union and the stage of negotiations reached’ because Parliament rejected the amendment submitted by the honourable member Matti Wuori. A disproportionately large number of breakdowns occurred during the preparations for putting the nuclear reactor Temelin into operation. In addition, environmental sustainability tests are not being carried out to an adequate extent, and the central parts of the reactor have not undergone crucial monitoring by international experts.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001127.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade; in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1001130.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001132.txt','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001133.txt','Mr President, considerations of time have hitherto prevented me from congratulating the rapporteur, but today it is out of conviction that I refrain from doing so. Let me say at the outset that I support Mr Pirker\'s viewpoint, to which I refer in order to avoid repetition. The report raises a number of issues which, as I see it, have not been resolved. How will an equal distribution of applicants for asylum in the EU be achieved if standards vary because Member States are obliged to retain higher standards? How is unrestricted freedom of movement for third-country nationals while their application for asylum is in progress to be reconciled with the public\'s need for security and with concerns that the procedure should be speeded up? How do we explain to our citizens a regulation that ensures applicants for asylum access to the labour market as soon as possible, whilst they themselves may be unemployed? If the way the EU worked were as transparent as we would all like it to be, one would end up wondering how our citizens would vote in response to proposals of this sort.','Mr President, considerations of time have hitherto prevented me from congratulating the rapporteur, but today it is out of conviction that I refrain from doing so. Let me say at the outset that I support Mr Pirker\'s viewpoint, to which I refer in order to avoid repetition. The report raises a number of issues which, as I see it, have not been resolved. How will an equal distribution of applicants for asylum in the EU be achieved if standards vary because Member States are obliged to retain higher standards? How is unrestricted freedom of movement for third-country nationals while their application for asylum is in progress to be reconciled with the public\'s need for security and with concerns that the procedure should be speeded up? How do we explain to our citizens a regulation that ensures applicants for asylum access to the labour market as soon as possible, whilst they themselves may be unemployed? If the way the EU worked were as transparent as we would all like it to be, one would end up wondering how our citizens would vote in response to proposals of this sort.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1001134.txt','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001148.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100115.txt','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001161.txt','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001165.txt','The reduction in the incidence of suspected fraud and irregularities in 2001, by 37% over against the preceding year, obscures the report\'s real message, which is a powerful one. The reality is that, in comparison to previous years, this is the second highest level that figures for suspected fraud have reached. These results, which emerge from the report, give cause for concern. Although there have been improvements in the combating of fraud, it seems utterly impossible to get misuse or the irregular use of EU funds under control. I repeat my long-standing criticism that the structures mean that abuses are inherent in the system. I appeal to the Member States to make greater efforts in this area in order to put an end to these abuses. Cooperation with other Member States, as well as closer checks at home, is absolutely vital, and not just in view of the imminent enlargement.','The reduction in the incidence of suspected fraud and irregularities in 2001, by 37% over against the preceding year, obscures the report\'s real message, which is a powerful one. The reality is that, in comparison to previous years, this is the second highest level that figures for suspected fraud have reached. These results, which emerge from the report, give cause for concern. Although there have been improvements in the combating of fraud, it seems utterly impossible to get misuse or the irregular use of EU funds under control. I repeat my long-standing criticism that the structures mean that abuses are inherent in the system. I appeal to the Member States to make greater efforts in this area in order to put an end to these abuses. Cooperation with other Member States, as well as closer checks at home, is absolutely vital, and not just in view of the imminent enlargement.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100117.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001173.txt','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001182.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001185.txt','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001192.txt','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001193.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found; the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs; European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy; Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001200.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001203.txt','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001209.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001231.txt','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001234.txt','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1001246.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001249.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001257.txt','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001266.txt','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001273.txt','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100128.txt','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001281.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001288.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001295.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001296.txt','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1001301.txt','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100131.txt','Mr President, in the course of the last few years there has been a succession of serious tanker disasters world-wide and the countermeasures taken have either been ineffective or not worth mentioning. It is particularly bad this time, not least because it has affected a major European State an incident which could happen again at any time. We urgently require a directive if we are to reduce these risks. The 15 clearly do not suffice. These guarantee – making no claim to be exhaustive – a minimum of 3 things. No tanker or freighter fit only for the scrap heap must ever put into any harbour within the European Union again. All those involved, including the transport agent, are responsible for any ensuing damage, and these individuals are to provide satisfactory assurances. This is the only way of affording the victims the opportunity to make their claims for compensation. However, we must aim higher in the long-term, let there be no mistake about that. In other words, we need real cost-effectiveness for our entire energy supply system.','Mr President, in the course of the last few years there has been a succession of serious tanker disasters world-wide and the countermeasures taken have either been ineffective or not worth mentioning. It is particularly bad this time, not least because it has affected a major European State; an incident which could happen again at any time. We urgently require a directive if we are to reduce these risks. The 15 clearly do not suffice. These guarantee – making no claim to be exhaustive – a minimum of 3 things. No tanker or freighter fit only for the scrap heap must ever put into any harbour within the European Union again. All those involved, including the transport agent, are responsible for any ensuing damage, and these individuals are to provide satisfactory assurances. This is the only way of affording the victims the opportunity to make their claims for compensation. However, we must aim higher in the long-term, let there be no mistake about that. In other words, we need real cost-effectiveness for our entire energy supply system.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100134.txt','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100145.txt','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10015.txt','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100155.txt','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100160.txt','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100162.txt','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100174.txt','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100181.txt','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100182.txt','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100195.txt','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100198.txt','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report; firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators; secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level; and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100216.txt','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100248.txt','Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we Greens, but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us Greens on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.','Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we Greens, but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us Greens on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100268.txt','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture we are just the poorer thereby.','Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU\'s citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10027.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, first of all may I thank Mrs Ruth Hieronymi for the marvellous manner in which she has cooperated with our committee and for the outstanding degree of cooperation in all the committees and across the political spectrum. We have concentrated on the key points. Everyone has made compromises in order to try and improve still further a programme which was already very good from the outset. I speak now for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and wish to focus on two aspects of the programme. Like the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, with which we reached agreement on these points, we also call for an increase in these limited budgetary resources and an addition to the legal basis – not a change, but an addition! Why do I, or my colleagues in the Legal Affairs Committee, see a connection between these things? I believe that everything is global, that art and culture, like everything else, are subject to these laws. One reason why there has to be a European cultural policy is that the nation states are no longer able to pursue their cultural policies alone. Where the European Union can intervene, as it is already doing in MEDIA Plus, it should be able to continue doing so with a greater volume of financial resources. The Council should be called to account here. I believe, Commissioner, that Parliament is actually playing into the hands of the Commission when we say that we want more money in order to be able to guarantee the pursuit of a European cultural policy, and that is also the reason why we should like an addition to the legal basis. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that our aim here is not to subsidise the film industry but rather to ensure that more European films can be watched in Europe. First of all, we have to win over this European territory in its entirety so that we can continue to operate efficiently. I do not think that I need speak for my full two minutes if I can focus on these two points. We should like more money, and we should like this addition to the legal basis. No doubt you will be able to echo these sentiments, Madam Commissioner.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100276.txt','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)','Mr President, it is a case of better late than never as far as the Commission is concerned! There has been virtually no major stage in the history of European integration so far that did not begin with a vision on the part of the Commission, underpinned by a major plan and a White Paper. This constitutional process is in fact the first major step where the Commission has lagged cautiously behind and has, if anything, been reactive instead of leading the way. I nevertheless welcome what President Prodi has said. He has summarised the results of the Convention so far, and he has come down on the side of the angels on some contentious issues – by which, if I may be so bold, I mean on the side of the European Parliament – and in particular he has come down on the side of a Community Europe, and against an intergovernmental Europe, and he has presented a whole raft of intelligent proposals. I too have been unable to read this document as quickly as our friend Andrew Duff has, so I can only make a few limited comments. One thing needs to be said about this paper – it does not make any sparks fly! It does not generate any great enthusiasm or paint any broad canvases. It does not attempt to involve the public, the citizens of Europe, in this mighty battle for power. It is a very cautious, perhaps technocratic and certainly intelligent, and sometimes even clever paper. Yes, you have come down in favour of the Community method, but in that case you should also have presented a bolder picture of European unity. There are major tasks and important horizons involved in this process of European integration, but you have not presented them here. The social dimension, which is may be the main issue on which the Convention will founder, scarcely gets a mention. The same applies to European democracy. This paper talks, for example, about a ‘constitutional text’ rather than about a constitution as such. Yes, you are in favour of scrapping the unanimity rule, but it is nevertheless to be retained when it comes to modifying Commission proposals. Unity and democracy are all very well, but being given power is a little more important. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I cannot find any reference here to access to the European Court of Justice, which rules on fundamental rights. The role of Parliament is to be enhanced, but the right of initiative remains exclusively that of the Commission. Parliament is to elect the President of the Commission, but the President is also to be accountable to the Council. And the responsibility of the Commission is far from clear, with the Commission being given greater scope for tactical manoeuvring, while the public is to gain relatively little. I do not want to allow this to become too much of a critique. This is a proposal that also makes the Commission Parliament\'s ally, but I would have liked to have seen more determination to tackle the really important tasks and to respond with a sense of vision, particularly as regards Europe\'s response to the dangers of globalisation, to the unprecedented intellectual and political challenge of developing a supranational democracy, of taking the separation of powers seriously, of taking the rejection of an intergovernmental Europe seriously, and of making the legislative process more open and giving the public access to all documentation. I hope that we can still persuade the Commission not to be merely cautious in making common cause with us, but also to be our ally as regards new horizons in European integration. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10028.txt','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!','Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the Commission for its explanations and then also all the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport, especially the coordinators, who were able to find a solution to this issue, something that the short time available made a matter of urgency. In order to clarify my – perhaps somewhat over-simplified – statement to the effect that broadcasting companies were more consumers than creators, I would like to add that this is not a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. They are both consumers and creators, but not exclusively so, and even so they can enjoy protection at international level, which film performers cannot. On this I agree absolutely with Mrs Hieronymi. This is a loophole that we should close, and I am glad that the various powers are making a united effort to do this. When we talk about this international protection for audiovisual performers that we desire, what do we mean by it? This is, primarily, about their moral rights. Imagine that one of your speeches here in plenary were to be used without your authorisation, in a modified form, or perhaps even misused; as its author, you would be able to defend yourself, but, as a performer, you would have hardly any options, and only rarely the right to do anything about it. A second aspect, and an important one, is the use of names. It is of immense importance to any creative artist that he should be able to put his name to his work, even if he is a mere cog, a part of the whole. That is every bit as important to performers, including those outside the European Union. Now, although one does not perhaps have to worry as much about the likes of Hugh Grant as about the thousands who are less prominent, even national film celebrities sometimes go through bad years, when it just happens that they are not on set for a single day all year. That may be the luck of the artist and something that one cannot do anything about, but the rent still has to be paid. What would help them is something to which they do, in fact, have every right – to have a share in the added value of successful productions – whether this be through the practice of buy-outs, through appropriate remuneration, or by way of the options that are open to us in the European Union. I do think that all the audiovisual performers outside the EU, who do not enjoy these rights, are waiting expectantly for a signal from us. I am glad that we are fighting this battle side by side, and I wish you good luck, or, to put it in thespian language: break a leg! May the exercise be a success!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004100.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004105.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for producing this report. The European Union has declared gender equality to be one of its key objectives, and I think it is extremely important that this priority be factored into development cooperation. It is still predominantly women and girls who can neither read nor write and who are discriminated against in education. Education, however, is the key to escaping from the vicious cycle of poverty and illness. Anyone unable to read and write has no chance in our computer– and Internet-dominated world. Whatever happens, it is essential that in promoting equal opportunities, we ensure that all women benefit, regardless of age. The report concentrates primarily on strengthening existing local organisations, because they have the experts on the ground, the experts on the underlying structures, who know what is really needed there. Women are indispensable in all rural areas and essential to further development in the regions. As previous speakers have already pointed out, women in developing countries are often given a passive role in projects and planning processes. This means they do not have enough input into projects, and consequently less attention is given to the needs of women. Women therefore need to be included as active participants in local planning processes, so that they can actively shape their environment and so they can also take on new challenges with 100% commitment. As has already been said, the financial framework for implementing this regulation needs to contain the EUR 11 million, in order to introduce efficient measures that will also have an effect when implemented. I therefore ask Parliament to approve these EUR 11 million tomorrow. Gender mainstreaming may well be over-used as a term, and perhaps seems to have worn thin at times, but it is still a fundamental concept which must be applied to all policy areas.'),(3.166658397214988,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,3,'1004106.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100411.txt','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.','Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will never be finished, but we must press on with the project for political union with determination and vision, and on a Community basis. If we do not, the public will lose confidence in us. If we do not, we will achieve neither integration nor consolidation. If we do not, we cannot discharge our responsibilities for our continent on the world stage, and mistakes can be made. They can be corrected, and they must be. What has happened, though, is not just a matter of mistakes being made; what I find lamentable is the lack of sufficient political will on the part of the Heads of State or Government who took part and hence the lack of European leaders, indeed of European statesmen. Will, courage, emotion, enthusiasm – all are wanting, and so, therefore, are credibility and confidence. Whenever the future of Europe depends on unanimous approval by the Council rather than on agreement between the Community institutions, crisis is in the air. It happened with the sanctions against Austria, it happened with the Iraq crisis, it happened with the Stability and Growth Pact. More and more frequently, we blame the Community objectives for problems at national level. So let me conclude by saying that the Convention has not failed, the Commission has not stood in the way, Parliament is not putting the brakes on a Europe that is more democratic, more transparent and closer to its citizens. We say a forthright ‘no’ to unanimity and ‘yes’ to a dual majority, which is democratically fair, ‘no’ to the apportionment of blame and ‘yes’ to shared responsibility in Europe, ‘no’ to a more nationalised internal policy and ratification process and ‘yes’ to their becoming more European, ‘no’ to the Intergovernmental Conference method and ‘yes’ to the Convention in which governments and parliaments are represented, ‘yes’ to a European Union of peoples and citizens, ‘no’ to an intergovernmental core Europe, ‘yes’ to shouldering our responsibilities within Europe and around the world, ‘no’ to a reduction of Member States’ contributions. We say ‘yes’ to the idea of summoning the Convention after Christmas in order to discuss the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference and in order to speedily implement all that came out of the Convention, or was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference, and is feasible on the basis of current law. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004111.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004116.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, like oranges from Italy and kilts from Great Britain, but it is quite unnecessary to transport, for example, potatoes from Germany right through Europe, have them peeled in Italy and then transport them back again. That no longer has anything to do with the free movement of goods, nor indeed do the thousands and thousands of journeys by unladen lorries thundering at excessively high speed through Bavaria and Austria. The Austria/Tyrol Transit Forum, one of Austria\'s largest NGOs, sums it up in precise terms: the fact is that, in 1991 and 2001, on the route through the Brenner Pass, NOx emissions from heavy goods vehicles increased by 18%. The fact is that journeys undertaken by HGVs travelling through Austrian territory have gone up by 50%. The fact is that in not one of the years since the Treaty was signed has any traffic been transferred from road to rail. On the contrary, the tonnage on the road over the Brenner has increased from 15 million tonnes of freight to 26 million. That amounts to an increase of 73%. The people living along the transit routes are in despair. Many of them are farmers whose families have lived on their farms for centuries. It is not a matter of them being given a higher value, but they do live higher up. I beg you not to rob these people of their last hope. My dear Georg, the ecopoint system was always, in essence, a compromise. I saw the Council\'s New Year\'s Eve resolution as the very last chance for us to find a common way ahead. By contrast, I see the Caveri report as the devastating result of the work of a lobby that is as hard as nails, a group with financial clout and much other power besides, by which I mean the hauliers. It goes without saying that, in Austria too, there are groups trying to get their justified demands incorporated into policy. But the brutal and shameless way in which I saw this happening in the European Union was something really new – and I have quite a few years in politics behind me! I could well name several Members of this House – do not worry, I am not actually going to – who told me that they understood us Austrians, and were also on our side, but asked what else they could do, as their hauliers would finish them off. I beg you, I beseech you, to reject the Caveri report and adopt the Danish presidency\'s compromise proposal. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Commissioner. Quite apart from my speaking time, I would like to correct the young man over there; if he wants to regard the Alps, this wonderful work of God\'s hands, as nothing more than an obstacle to transport, then that is his business! (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004118.txt','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.','Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have finally brought it home to us that global crises have global consequences and that the European Union can no longer afford any eurocentrism. This does not mean downgrading the importance of EU enlargement and the stabilisation of the Balkans; it simply means that the Rio process must not suffer the same fate as the Barcelona process or the policies on the Mediterranean. It should not take a terrorist attack for us to give relations with these marginal areas of Europe or the Latin American region, a region which has strong historical and demographic links with Europe, the attention they deserve. The European Parliament\'s own-initiative report by Mr Salafranca is therefore timely, coming as it does in advance of the Rio follow-up summit in Madrid in May next year. We need to develop a strategy and give greater priority to our policies on Latin America at every level in order to combat poverty on this continent, consolidate democracy, tackle organised crime and drug trafficking, and, finally, to protect our economic interests. The conclusion of the association agreement with Mexico has had a positive impact on the European business presence in that country, which has benefited both sides. The association agreement with Chile will, we hope, be signed in Madrid in May. Unfortunately, the negotiations with Mercosur are not progressing as smoothly. I hope that in this context, the Commission and the European Parliament will do their utmost to overcome the hurdles concerning Argentina and Brazil. Free trade is not a one-way street, and more or less concealed protectionism should be a thing of the past. We must also increase awareness of the Latin American region. The establishment of a Centre for European and Latin American Studies would be a welcome step. What Latin America needs, however, are not only association agreements but general strategies to promote an investment-friendly climate, and this can only be achieved if there is political stability and an end to capital flight. Not every dollar earned should be transferred directly to Miami.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004122.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo; they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.'),(3.166658397214988,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,3,'1004123.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are still present, the report on the 2001 annual report on the European Agency for Reconstruction was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 11 June 2002. The vote in plenary was, however, deliberately adjourned to the autumn, in order to give the Commission the opportunity to comply with a demand constantly reiterated by the Foreign Policy Committee by presenting a strategy for overall policy in the Balkans and the Agency for Reconstruction\'s role in it and clarifying how, in future, functions are to be shared out between, on the one hand, the Agency and, on the other, the delegations on the ground. The Commission has not submitted a report on this, nor has it kept to the November 2001 agreement in which it undertook to present the report on the medium-term strategy for the administration of EU aid in the context of the stabilisation and association process before the end of March 2002. The European Commission\'s report on strategies for assistance in the Western Balkans is a very thorough depiction of the situation, and Commissioner Patten was also available on 19 June to give us additional information. No strategy in this sense was articulated, however, something that Mr Swoboda summed up with words to the effect that, if there were no such strategy, that itself spoke volumes. The demand that the Commission submit a report to the Council, not as late as June 2004, just before the European Agency for Reconstruction\'s mandate expires, but by June 2003 at the latest, and involve Parliament in this, is therefore all the more important. Only thus can we avoid destabilising the Agency and ensure that it can work efficiently. This becomes a matter of even more pressing concern in view of the EU\'s financial commitments in the Balkans. I was myself able, when visiting Pristina, to satisfy myself as to the Agency\'s efficiency, which, incidentally, the Court of Auditors has also confirmed. It is extremely regrettable and gives cause for concern that the export of electricity by the local electricity company KEK resulted in substantial irregularities, with export earnings amounting to USD 4.2 million landing up in an illicit account in Gibraltar. The Agency has itself, however, introduced measures to prevent future criminal manoeuvres of this kind within KEK and help it to clear them up. The Agency for Reconstruction also itself called in OLAF in relation to the contract of a questionable external advisor. What is important in this connection is that an internal auditor is to be appointed as soon as possible. The provision of electricity in Kosovo still leaves much to be desired. That a new agreement between UNMIK and Serbia created the political conditions for making it easier to supply Kosovo with adequate electricity is something to be welcomed. As rapporteur, I am aware that the Agency works in Kosovo under difficult political conditions. Its political status has still not been clarified, and there are continuing ethnic tensions between the Serb minority and the Albanian majority. Making the positive influence of the European Union and of the Agency visible is thus all the more important. Any strategy for this region must have as its objective the facilitation of a sustainable policy and the progressive reduction of financial grants from the EU, principally through efficient charging for all public services. The extension of the Agency\'s mandate to Macedonia aroused controversy, as the political situation prevailing in Macedonia at the outset, whilst extremely fragile, was quite different to that in Kosovo and, above all, because the consultation mechanism between the Commission and Parliament, by which of course funds have to be approved, was not always ideal. The report therefore proposes political guidelines for the Agency, and future work can centre around these. The decision-making mechanisms in the Commission\'s individual offices should also be as clear and transparent as possible. Turning specifically to the Agency\'s commitments in Macedonia, the situation has improved, and it has been possible to complete 900 houses. Progress has also been made in clearing mines. It is also particularly important that the Agency should enjoy a problem-free working relationship with the local delegation in Macedonia, where elections are due to be held on 15 September. The situation there is extremely tense, and it is not certain whether these elections will be held under proper conditions, if, that is, they are held at all. Today in plenary, we have been debating the European Union\'s responsibility for Afghanistan, and have assured Commissioner Patten of our support. What is true of Afghanistan applies far more to the Balkans, for which the European Union has a direct responsibility. In this sense, the report on the Agency for Reconstruction should make a contribution to sustainable crisis management.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004139.txt','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.','I too would like to thank both the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner Schreyer for the very clear and comprehensive account of the financial planning for 2005, and especially for Mrs de Palacio’s observation that a 25-member Commission can and will function every bit as well as the one we have at present. Of that, I too am convinced, and I think it highly important that this Commission should not merely be open to twenty-five members, but should also be credible, strong and capable of putting its policies into practice. The issues around the Stability and Growth Pact show just how important that is; this is where the Commission has already passed a test and has yet to pass another by backing stability and growth and safeguarding the policies and principles underlying them. That is in the interests of all of us, as ‘business and growth’ and ‘stability and growth’ are the two sides of the same coin. Something, though, that I regard as a very important area, and about which I would like to ask you a question, is security policy, involving judicial cooperation, security and freedom in an enlarged European Union. Resources are available for it, and it is a very important area. Where, in it, do you want the specific policy priorities to be – in securing borders or combating drugs? The citizens of the European Union expect enlargement to bring greater security rather than to diminish it, and for this the funding must be guaranteed, so that the external borders can be properly secured, and methodologies developed to effectively combat international crime and illegal immigration.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100414.txt','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.','Mr President, the Commission has submitted a promising work programme for the year 2000. We cannot do other than give this programme our full backing. However, there are also some unfortunate gaps in it. There is one gap in particular I would like to discuss; it is one Mr Jarzembowski touched on just before. I do not see the work programme make any mention whatsoever of tourism. We are talking about one of the most important branches of industry here, both within the EU and beyond its borders. We have long been promised measures for this sector. It requires improvement as a matter of urgency, but nothing is happening. But the Commission has other important tasks to perform besides those of a legislative nature. As Mr Poettering has already mentioned today, it also has a pivotal role as guardian of the treaties. With that in mind, the Commission – I say this in view of the occasion – has taken upon itself the task of monitoring the activities of one Member State in particular very closely. As a citizen of the country in question, I do not object to this modus operandi. Nor will my homeland have a problem with subjecting itself to European scrutiny in matters of human rights, the rights of foreign nationals, and anti-racist policy. On the contrary, we have shown in the past that our country has one of the best records on all these points, and we intend to keep it that way. If the Commission is to be the guardian of the treaties then please, Mr Prodi, be thorough in your work. The behaviour of “the Fourteen”, or at least of some members of this coterie, can infringe Community law too, and in recent days and weeks, Community law has been infringed on a number of points, for example over the Cultural Capital 2000 issue, school exchange programmes in the Union, and other matters. I have “and so on and so forth” written down here, but I hope that things do not continue in this vein. Hence I urge the Commission to uphold its role as guardian of the treaties in these matters too, and to remain vigilant.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004142.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004145.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September is still on everyone\'s lips, and we know that nuclear material has to be handled with very great care. That is why we have a Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) to work very intensively on ensuring that the quantity of such material available is properly checked and monitored, and to work to ensure that such materials are used only for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the agreements entered into by the European Union and its individual Member States must be adhered to, and we should take care that, in future, nuclear materials are subject to even more scrutiny than at present. We are all aware of the bomb threats in America, where terrorist groups have, threatened, among other things, to detonate such material in exposed places. With this in mind, it is now of all times that we should be making it our concern that these materials are secured in future. Our basic assumption is that our primary interest is in protecting the public. Indeed the Euratom treaty states that the health of the public and of the workforce is to be protected from the dangers of ionising radiation, and the Commission is entitled to implement appropriate measures for this purpose. I believe that now is the time for common European safety standards for nuclear power stations and for the transport nuclear material to be established. I would like very warmly to thank Commissioner de Palacio for committing the Commission to becoming active in this area and to producing standards. I think Parliament has already called for that in the Schwaiger Report on the accession of new states, which called for a code of nuclear safety even before the new Member States join. This report has already been adopted by Parliament. I also assume that it will, tomorrow, adopt the call for the public to be protected. The European Court of Auditors has, of course, already called for safety standards, and Parliament also has its right to propose legislation, and, according to the Euratom treaty, can submit appropriate proposals on matters with regard to which it believes that a Community act is necessary. Parliament\'s opinion is that a Community act is very definitely required on these issues. The EU possesses at present no uniform safety standards, and if we were to make it known today that this or that nuclear power station appeared to be dangerous, we actually have no legal status on the basis of which such assertions could be confirmed or refuted. That is why, even before these countries join us, safeguards are of such particular importance to us. We do not believe that finance should prove an insuperable obstacle. It is safeguards that are of particular importance for us. In this area as in others, we will have high expectations of the new ten countries that want to join the EU, and we ought also to consider role the ESO might play in future. We are therefore of the opinion that we should have two directives; one on the transport of nuclear materials and a second on the auditing, certification and supervision of nuclear safety. It might also be possible to develop the ESO into an independent authority with the capacity to actually supervise and co-ordinate these activities itself. That would be a splendid opportunity for the European Union to lay down definite Europe-wide conditions for the future. My final point is that Parliament takes the view that this issue should also be discussed in the Convention, which should, on these matters, contribute new plans and ideas for the future and initiate reflection on how we may, in future, take effective action in this area.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004147.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, first let me say how much I welcome this debate on Iraq. It is a sign that we Europeans wish to shoulder responsibility for the post-war situation in Iraq and look forwards. That is why I think it is a good thing that we have avoided a resolution on the post-war situation in Iraq, because that would have meant us getting embroiled in a debate about guilt and expiation within the European Union, about our inconsistent positions towards the United States and the different roles we envisage for the United Nations. No one would benefit from that, least of all the Iraqis themselves. I would like to say at this point, however, that we do support a central role for the United Nations, for one simple reason: if you are administering a foreign country, you need to have legitimacy under international law. Iraq\'s chief administrator should therefore have a UN mandate. We must ensure that the money from the Oil-for-Food Programme is used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. All the economic and financial sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 should be lifted immediately. Now that Saddam Hussein\'s regime has been toppled, there can be no further reason to maintain those sanctions. I regard the debate about exactly what is meant by a central United Nations role in the reconstruction of Iraq as being a somewhat artificial one. In a country where civil order has broken down, and where the basic structures of a functioning administration still need to be set up, where the regime has left behind an appalling legacy of hardship and violence and the most basic things are lacking, it is essential to focus on humanitarian assistance and its coordination. This is an area where the European Union has a greater part to play, and I support the ECHO programme already under way. It is in any case time that we avoided giving the impression that the United States alone is acting while the 15 Member States of the European Union are still talking, so that once the dust has settled after the Iraq war the European Union should primarily set itself the task of sorting out its relations with the United States. We will soon be welcoming Mr Kwasniewski, the President of Poland, who represents a state that acted alongside the USA in Iraq, but who will nevertheless be telling us that he is interested in a common foreign and security policy. Before we start casting doubt on these countries\' European ideals – and those of Member States of the EU – it would be better if we considered viewing all those countries that were the United States\' allies in military action as potential bridges between ourselves and Washington. Just as with the ‘Quartet’ in the Middle East, it is only credible for the EU to act in partnership with the US, not in opposition to it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100415.txt','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)','Mr President, I would just like to give a brief justification for this motion. As you know, we have had several timetabling problems and postponements today and not only today but also in the run up to the debate of these four reports. Everyone who attended the preliminary discussions of the von Wogau, Rapkay, Jonckheer and Langen reports in committee is aware of the importance of competition policy and of future internal market policy to the future development of the economy and to growth and employment in Europe. Our view is that, given the importance which the work of the European Union and which our relations with Member States, undertakings and workers will have in the future, all four reports should be debated in detail in plenary and substantiated vis-à-vis the public at a more convenient time. These four reports do not, primarily, represent the culmination of processes; they are important contributions to the future debate on development. I therefore move, on the grounds of timetabling problems and the importance of these four reports to competition policy, that we deal with them during the first part-session next year, i.e. in January, preferably on Tuesday in Strasbourg and I ask you on behalf of all the rapporteurs to support this motion. (Applause)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004151.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004155.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn\'s report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one\'s time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU\'s Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee\'s opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004159.txt','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.','Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon\'s on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union\'s foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO\'s establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon\'s concept.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004163.txt','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.','– (DE Mr President, the rapporteurs Duff and Voggenhuber, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, have done some sterling work. The report itself is sound because it conveys the key messages without going so far as to anticipate the work of the fundamental rights convention. I therefore nurture the hope that tomorrow in plenary sitting, this report will be adopted in the form we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights drafted it in. However there is one point which I would like to be amended. I have tabled an amendment to this effect on behalf of my group. It concerns the question, raised repeatedly today, as to whether the European Union should sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was an important goal in the past. It was an important and appropriate goal in the past precisely because there was no intention, at that stage, to create our own, autonomous catalogue of fundamental rights at European Union level; viewed in this light, it was far better to have that, as a second-best solution, than nothing at all. But that is not the path we want Europe to go down in the future, and nor should it. With all due respect for the Human Rights Convention, we need more! We need our own Charter that provides our own answers to the questions raised by the age we live in. It must balance traditional, liberal rights with an adequate set of economic rights as well as offer effective solutions to issues pertaining to the social rights of citizens of the European Union and to the need to guarantee them a basic standard of social protection.. The European Convention on Human Rights does not fulfil this task. It is not in a position to do so because it came into being in the 50s, when political and social conditions were completely different. Seen in this light, it is time for all of us to call for constructive work to commence on our own Charter. We call upon the Convention on Fundamental Rights, the 62 politicians that David Martin mentioned, to take up this task. Let us support them in this.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004164.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anyone skimming through Mrs Buitenweg’s report and listening to her statement might think that these proposals of hers are actually quite straightforward and thoroughly acceptable. This is a shrewd piece of work. Let me warn you very strongly, however, against supporting it. You need only read the last section of this report, in which Mrs Buitenweg says quite openly in her explanatory statement that cannabis should purely and simply be deleted from the list of internationally controlled substances. In other words, she is calling from the outset for an amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 and for the deletion of cannabis from the list of prohibited products. The reason why I wish to warn you categorically against backing Mrs Buitenweg’s proposals is that your vote for this report is a vote in favour of freely available drugs and against the health and future of our young people and our society. If you back Mrs Buitenweg, your support will help drug dealers to extend their massive business operations to Europe, and it will damage the programme established by the United Nations with a view to helping farmers to switch to alternative crops and to make a profit from them, because you will be opening a new market for drugs in Europe. And you will ultimately be guaranteeing the proliferation of drugs instead of waging all-out war against them, which ought to be our aim. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – and I say this here as their spokesman – are resolutely opposed to the free availability of cannabis. We support the preservation of the UN Single Convention. What we advocate is the full application of this Convention, not its amendment. We are in favour of the full entry into force of the programme produced by the European Union, involving simultaneous measures of prevention, suppression and reintegration. Why are we in favour of this approach, and why do we oppose the free availability of narcotic drugs? It is fairly simple: consider, if you would, the horrific situation in the European Union, where one third of our young people have already tried cannabis. Almost 8% of 15- to 19-year-olds smoke pot daily, and 75% of young people think that cannabis is harmless, even though several studies produced by the medical profession indicate conclusively that the use of cannabis poses physical and, more especially, psychological risks and that it leads to addiction. In short, there is absolutely no reason to liberalise the sale and use of any narcotic drugs, including cannabis, or to remove cannabis from the list of prohibited substances. On the contrary, anyone who knows how much harm drugs can inflict on young people will agree that zero tolerance of drugs is the only answer. That is what we are demanding as an alternative to the proposals contained in this report, and we hope that a majority of the House will support us in tomorrow’s vote, because we want to protect our young people, and for their sake we are resolutely opposed to any amendment of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is why we hope that common sense will prevail in the European Parliament and that we can take this common sense majority view to the Vienna conference in order to reinforce the United Nations in its efforts to combat narcotic drugs and to make it clear to the UN that we support the preservation of the Single Convention and that we shall do our utmost to oppose any liberalisation and legalisation of narcotic drugs. To sum up, unless radical changes are made to the Buitenweg report, we shall certainly be unable to give it our approval. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004184.txt','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.','Mr President, Wim van Velzen has shown that services and competition are being properly employed in the interests of the consumer. I would also like to thank the Commission for its professional work, because it has endeavoured to stimulate dialogue and discussion. Europe’s strength is its objective problem-solving ability, and not rejection of dialogue. I believe we must have transparency, particularly where pricing is concerned. We want to be able to ascertain immediately, and at all times, what an incoming or outgoing call costs. We want to make it possible for there to be a benchmark, which the most efficient and competent operator can actually implement. We need transparency in this sector to this end.  However, we also want portability of numbers, so that a number is a personal distinguishing feature and people can actually be recognised by their numbers. It should be possible for there to be portability without the number issuer being able to charge for it. Of course, it should also be possible for there to be number portability from the mobile to the fixed network, and perhaps also to other future technologies. The emergency number 112 has very special significance. I myself have advocated in the past that 112-operators must be able to deal with calls in the official languages of the European Union, and that it should, of course, also be possible to ascertain the caller’s location, because it is in emergency situations, for example in the event of fire or accident, that a person is most likely to be in a state of shock and is often unable to provide a precise definition of their location. Therefore, I believe it would do those who find themselves in emergency situations a great service if it were possible to ascertain their location automatically.  The caller location facility should be regulated where consumers so desire, but in a clear and transparent manner. It is absolutely vital for there to be transparency in relation to the costs, and for no contracts to be awarded on the quiet here, unbeknown to the public and the consumer, but which still have to be paid for. Hence all operators in this sector must be governed by the same regulatory framework. Needless to say, it is also important to tackle damaging content. We should give thought, in this respect, to whether it would be possible to conduct studies analysing who in the European Union, is actually responsible for tackling damaging content.  My final point concerns the proceeds from auctions. I believe this is another area in which we should offer best practice models as to what should happen with the funds, so that it is not just used to cover debts but is used mainly for forward-looking investment.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004190.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004192.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it; that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague; and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism; that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol; and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations; and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004193.txt','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.','Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say \'was\' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium , whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004194.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, are there any statistics on violent crime and, above all, on compensation payments within the European Union and, particularly, developments in recent years?','Mr President, Commissioner, are there any statistics on violent crime and, above all, on compensation payments within the European Union and, particularly, developments in recent years?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004195.txt','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.','I very much welcome today\'s vote in the plenary of the European Parliament in favour of accepting the ten countries that wish to accede to the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union represents a gain both for the European Union and for the candidates for accession and is an indispensable prerequisite for peace, stability and prosperity in a reunited Europe. It is with reference to this, though, that I would like to reiterate the urgent necessity of establishing, as soon as possible, an EU-wide harmonised system of common safety standards for all present and future EU Member States in the field of nuclear energy use. The following steps need to be taken without delay: Revision of the Euratom Treaty by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is currently in session; the drawing up and enactment of the directives already proposed by the European Commission on the improvement of nuclear safety; and the establishment of an independent authority at EU level to inspect controls in the area of nuclear safety in the Member States, in close collaboration with the IAEO. Having voted as I have done today, I will redouble my efforts towards a just political solution, as soon as possible, to the problem of the Beneš decrees and, in particular, of the Immunity Act, No. 115 of 8 May 1946.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004196.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU\'s two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10042.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004213.txt','Commissioner, I would like to ask a question on the economic situation. In Slovakia, the package of economy measures has entailed some problems and privations for the population. It is therefore important to stabilise the economic situation. We know in Europe small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the economy. What do you intend to do to expedite economic stability here and especially to establish contact between neighbouring States, located in direct proximity to the European Union? What programmes are envisaged here to get privatisation on the right road too? You know, there were considerable problems with the Meciar Government when privatisation went ahead. I believe that there is a great need for economic rehabilitation, and I believe it is extremely important for Slovakia. I would like to thank you expressly for the fact that you are going to propose that the appropriate negotiations begin in Helsinki. I believe this is a very important contribution that Europe can make.','Commissioner, I would like to ask a question on the economic situation. In Slovakia, the package of economy measures has entailed some problems and privations for the population. It is therefore important to stabilise the economic situation. We know in Europe small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the economy. What do you intend to do to expedite economic stability here and especially to establish contact between neighbouring States, located in direct proximity to the European Union? What programmes are envisaged here to get privatisation on the right road too? You know, there were considerable problems with the Meciar Government when privatisation went ahead. I believe that there is a great need for economic rehabilitation, and I believe it is extremely important for Slovakia. I would like to thank you expressly for the fact that you are going to propose that the appropriate negotiations begin in Helsinki. I believe this is a very important contribution that Europe can make.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004218.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004223.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations; the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(3.166658397214988,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,3,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004228.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban that there were wide-ranging discussions that a resolution was drafted and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004233.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, the European Council in Thessaloniki has a very demanding agenda. The future of the European Union is at stake – nothing more and nothing less. That is why the Convention has had to present a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union under enormous time pressure, a constitution that will prevent the European Union from becoming an impotent giant when it admits 10 new Member States. This enlargement presents the European Union with an enormous historical opportunity, an opportunity that we must seize. However, we can only take full advantage of this opportunity if we try to take into account the principles of equal rights for all Member States, the balance between the institutions and the ability of the European Parliament to play a full part in the legislative process. There should not be any attempt to make the European Union artificially smaller, to create a core EU of the original six members with the remaining members outside this inner circle. A multi-speed Europe in which the influence of Member States varies would weaken the cohesion of the European Union. The criteria for the future treaty of the European Union should not be large or small nor old or new. This applies in particular to those accession countries where referendums are still to be held and where there is a very definite scepticism about a European superstructure. Austria has therefore worked successfully for the interests of the smaller Member States – not that these countries needed us to act as their advocate. However, in politics conformity of interests is a valuable means of achieving legitimate demands. The hallmark of an EU constitutional treaty should therefore be that it does not unilaterally strengthen the intergovernmental approach at the cost of Community institutions like the Commission and Parliament, that it should not paralyse the EU by creating artificial functions that do not necessarily bring the EU any closer to its citizens and only eat up taxpayers\' money, and that it should strengthen the EU\'s ability to act, both externally and internally. I therefore welcome the de facto agreement on the European Foreign Minister. Although the dual presidency concept has not been totally abandoned, we need to seek models which prevent paralysis of the EU and which at the same time grant every country a Commissioner\'s post and which strengthen the President of the Commission and provide for that President to be chosen by Parliament. At least as important as the draft constitution is the fight against illegal immigration, which is very closely linked with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. With 500 000 illegal immigrants entering the EU every year, we need to find ways of tackling this real problem, in other words we need to create means of offering support to refugees on the ground and to provide for rapid decision making in the asylum process. Asylum policy must be based on the Geneva Convention and on common minimum standards.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004236.txt','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.','Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004240.txt','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004242.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive concerns the exhaust and noise emissions of petrol and diesel engines intended for recreational craft. We also have these regulations for cars and that certainly does not mean that if our cars meet these standards they too are permitted to be driven anywhere. At present, for example, there are rules limiting the number of boats on lakes to 100 or even 2 per lake. It is possible to ban recreational craft from lakes entirely. There are time restrictions, limiting the use of boats only to certain hours each day. In the end, this directive does not confer any right to operate recreational craft on all lakes at all times and under all possible conditions; all it does is allow free trade in boats and their licensing and it permits them to be used in authorised areas. All of us in the European Union value the principle of harmonisation, but only where minimum standards are set so that these technical products can also be used. As you know, we in Parliament – and in particular in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy – attach the utmost importance to the principle of mutual recognition, and I believe that this directive makes boat licensing possible. We see it as very positive that the general standards in the European Union are being raised substantially here. This would also automatically have an impact on the market, because with higher standards proportionally more boats would be permitted on the waters of Member States. If the standards are very low, the Member States will quite certainly take matters into their own hands by prohibiting the use of recreational craft on certain lakes altogether or by imposing time restrictions, for example by only allowing boats to be used in May or June. There is therefore sufficient room for manoeuvre here. It is precisely from this point of view that it is necessary to alert individual drivers, as part of their training for their motorboat licences, to the environmental and noise problem, as well as to the problem of exhaust emissions. There are countless regulations here and these are of course very important in the individual countries. We should also observe how this directive develops in the future, because it is in all our interests – everyone in this House will agree – to have environmental regulations that are as good, rigorous and sustainable as possible. The sportsmen and -women who operate these boats are also keen to have the best possible boats, so the switch to a new generation of craft certainly has to be in all our interests.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004244.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004248.txt','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004251.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.','Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to offer my congratulations and also to congratulate Mrs Rothe on having called for mandatory targets, because the likelihood that we will get these mandatory targets is in fact very great. I also believe that it is necessary to have efficient and fair cost sharing within the European Union, so that incentives for renewable energy sources are comparable and that the same yardsticks are applied. I wish to call on the Commission to actively apply best practice and benchmarking processes, because it is very important for the Member States, and particularly for the accession states, to find out where the best and worst values are to the found. I also believe that small and secure cycles have a major role to play in Europe\'s future and security of supply, and, as we have already seen in the case of water cycles, that they represent the best and cleanest forms of energy production, and so I consider that this affords us many new options. If the operators of the transmission networks could now also guarantee that there will be no discrimination, and that renewable energy sources will even be given priority, then that is something we could be very satisfied with. This directive is, of course, an interim stage, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Commission will also soon present a general certification model that we can make progress with. All in all, I believe that with this directive Europe is taking a great step forwards and I would like to sincerely congratulate everyone who has worked on it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004253.txt','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.','Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas\' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament\'s report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia\'s favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004258.txt','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.','Mr President-in-Office, you really have my admiration today when I consider the range of subjects you have had to address, ranging from the Iraq crisis to stray dogs in Athens. I admit that is asking a lot of you. I believe that this is relevant to the Council – I did in fact also put this question to the Commission but it did not reach it yesterday – because the umbrella organisation for all Greece\'s animal protection organisations has told us that the Council wanted Athens ‘cleansed’ so that the EU would not have to put up with seeing stray dogs there. Please accept that I love Athens, which I regard as the cradle of our culture and the birthplace of everything that we think and feel. But I always sleep very badly in Athens because it simply upsets me so much to hear these stray dogs barking. The point I wish to make is this, and neither the dogs nor I will mind if you address this as a member of the public or as a member of a government. There are animal protection organisations in Greece, and I know that they catch dogs and that they put down the old and sick dogs that are beyond help, and that they seek good homes for the healthy ones, and that the remainder are neutered and then released again. I believe that these organisations need money and the support of members of the public. If a particular member of the public also happened to be a minister, that would do no harm at all.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004264.txt','Mr President, the future of this European Union of ours is dependent to a crucial degree on its acceptance by the public, and this is something we must always bear in mind when proposing regulatory schemes. That is why I advocated leaving the regulation of travel restrictions to the Member States. Appropriate measures relating to restrictions at weekends or on public holidays should really be taken by the Member States, as it is these that are best suited to responding to special circumstances. The Member States should generally be allowed to impose limitations from the outset for environmental and safety reasons, and it is imperative that geographical considerations be taken into account. What should, though, be seen in a positive light, is the reference to the special case represented by the transportation of easily perishable foodstuffs such as milk, fruit or vegetables.','Mr President, the future of this European Union of ours is dependent to a crucial degree on its acceptance by the public, and this is something we must always bear in mind when proposing regulatory schemes. That is why I advocated leaving the regulation of travel restrictions to the Member States. Appropriate measures relating to restrictions at weekends or on public holidays should really be taken by the Member States, as it is these that are best suited to responding to special circumstances. The Member States should generally be allowed to impose limitations from the outset for environmental and safety reasons, and it is imperative that geographical considerations be taken into account. What should, though, be seen in a positive light, is the reference to the special case represented by the transportation of easily perishable foodstuffs such as milk, fruit or vegetables.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004270.txt','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?','Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention\'s draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004271.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004275.txt','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004279.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, with the permission of the Members of this House, I would like to use this speech to make a statement relating to my twin roles, as rapporteur for Malta, and also as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Czech Republic. Today makes me proud, as Parliament has today demonstrated its openness and signalled to the candidates for accession that they are welcome among us. European parliamentarism has thereby shown signs of being very much alive. The impression I get from today\'s debate with the candidate countries is of how self-evident the whole thing is, that it is normal for Europe to meet together, for the first time in a peaceful, voluntary and democratic way. For Austria in particular, a country in the heart of Europe, this means that, following Europe\'s division by the consequences of the Second World War, a corner has been rounded on the way to a better, more economically and socially stable Europe with an added value in terms of security policy. We are continuing a Central European tradition, one which has been particularly brought home to us today by the 90th birthday of Otto von Habsburg, the committed MEP and son of an emperor. We must not, of course, allow the historical perspective to distract our attention from the problems of today. There is still much to be done in the run-up to accession – corruption has to be combated, just as administrative systems and an independent workable justice system have to be built up. There must of course be safety in the nuclear field, and so I welcome the expectation expressed in the report on the Czech Republic that the bilateral undertakings negotiated by the European Commission with regard to Temelin will be adhered to in full, and that, furthermore, power stations such as Ignalina and Koslodui, with parts of Bohunice, must be closed down. We can welcome the transitional arrangements that demonstrate flexibility in making it possible for the labour market and vulnerable sectors of the economy to be protected. The progressive introduction of direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries – primarily Poland – also makes sense. Such arrangements are in no way a handicap. Processes of integration have always been accompanied by transitional arrangements and by temporary safeguard clauses such as those to which you, Mr Verheugen, have referred. If enlargement were to fail, the Austrian economy would lose EUR 270 million per annum. The removal of barriers to trade alone amounts to EUR 450 million per annum, meaning that every Austrian is investing EUR 28 per annum in enlargement. Enlargement of the EU is where our future lies. There are problems from the past that need to be dealt with, and it is in this sense that the additional clause proposed by Jürgen Schroedter – who is the rapporteur on the Czech Republic – on the subject of the Beneš decrees, should be understood. I wish to fully endorse what he said in his speech advocating support for this article. By giving broad-based support to this amendment, Parliament would be sending out a positive message. Let me now turn to my own report on Malta. It is a good thing that there is also a Mediterranean component to enlargement. Malta is a small island state, and there is no doubt that it is in the European Union that its future lies. The problems of integration to be overcome have essentially to do with agriculture and subsidies to dockyards. Malta also has a profoundly European heritage. Austria has a particular interest in Malta because thousands of our holidaymakers go there every year and because we have a share in the privatised airport. Speaking in political terms, we hope that the outcome of a referendum on Malta\'s accession to the EU will be accepted as the people\'s democratic choice, for there will not be a third chance! (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004285.txt','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?','Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004290.txt','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?','The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004300.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004309.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet; this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004316.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004319.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004326.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament\'s example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004331.txt','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004333.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what these reports and this action programme show is that the EU is on the right road, the road towards being a union of security, and is demonstrating that security begins at the border. If we want our internal borders to be open, our external borders need surveillance systems that work, and we also need compensatory elements along the lines of cross-border surveillance. That is underlined here with broad strokes of the pen. It is for this purpose that we need the new ARGO action programme. This is not only because the money from Odysseus has been used up. It is also because it must be our objective to build up and create an equal level of security on all our external borders, including those we will have in the future, in order, on the one hand, to safeguard ourselves against illegal immigration, organisations that traffic in human beings, and international organised crime, and on the other, to have available to us opportunities for monitoring, assistance and legal immigration and also for preparation for the grant of asylum. It seems to me particularly significant that such measures as the establishment of unitary standards for the use of information technology are highlighted, or that emphasis is laid on the fact that, at the end of the day, we are endeavouring to create common core training, that is, to achieve a common standard of training and qualifications. We should also be trying to tackle our future need for border security operations composed of experts from several Member States. I consider it significant that – as formerly with Odysseus – the possibility is envisaged of the candidate countries also being able to participate in the programme, whereby we are guaranteeing that they will be optimally prepared for greater security in the greater European Union that we share. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004334.txt','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.','Mr President, South Eastern Europe, or if you like the bankrupt estate of the former Yugoslavia, which was torn apart by bloody ethnic conflicts, putting Albania to one side, is essentially the parade ground for the European Union\'s Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is also its most severe test. Our efforts to provide these countries with economic and political support are much needed. We certainly should not put them on the back burner because of the enlargement of the European Union. In fact it is that very prospect of a future in Europe that we need to hold out to them. That is the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe. I consider the rapporteur\'s proposal that priorities should be set an extremely sensible one. Kosovo\'s final status needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency, as does the structure of Serbia and Montenegro in terms of constitutional law. Until we have done that, it will simply not be possible to enter into negotiations on an association agreement. The ill-defined status of Kosovo is a latent source of uncertainty. It means that business has no trust whatsoever in the situation and that there is inadequate investment. This leads in turn to an increase in corruption and to a growing trend towards emigration, in other words migratory pressure that we in Austria are particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive to. One of the most important conditions, and this applies to the entire region, is to impose the rule of law, and to fight corruption and organised crime. One very positive step here has been the creation of the Regional Centre for Combating Transborder Crime in Bucharest, and this centre will be represented at the relevant conference in London on 25 November. We visited this centre in Bucharest together with Dr Swoboda, and I should perhaps mention that those who work there include Austrian customs and police officials. It would be good if this centre had more input from Europe and not just from America. Another point I consider important is that under its Special Coordinator, Erhard Bussek, the Stability Pact has taken a great many political initiatives. It should be possible for this work to continue, and we need to achieve rapid agreement both in the Council and in the Commission on appropriate budgets for and extension of the Stability Pact.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004342.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the present allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States seems almost made to measure for populists of whatever stripe. Whenever someone in the Member States wants to evade responsibility for something that is important and necessary, but unpopular, they can, with a true ring of conviction, shrug off responsibility onto the EU. ‘My dear fellow-citizens, I would far rather do it another way, but Brussels will not let me!’ You can tell the voters anything you like, as they do not understand the allocation of competences. In any case, the public are puzzled by the way powers are apportioned. Never in the last fifty years has it been easy to understand, and today it has become incomprehensible. The system of restricted prerogatives has become an unrestricted supermarket of European policies, an unworkable situation that we want to use the Lamassoure Report to fundamentally change; it is all about making things orderly, systematic and comprehensible. Much of it, indeed most of it, appears to be well done. There is one topic that I consider especially important, and I am glad that the rapporteur has taken on board one of my suggestions. This is to do with future prohibition of what is termed the misuse of legal form. In the past, when power to enact regulations or directives was lacking, the European institutions all too frequently resorted to sleight-of-hand and invented an action plan, a measure, a pilot project and more of the same thing. The missing competence thus ceased to be a problem. If we henceforth block this gate of entry into national powers, we will be closing Pandora\'s box, and thereby, I hope, making Europe a bit more straightforward and comprehensible, and therefore more acceptable in the eyes of its citizens. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004345.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004351.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mr Clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report’s unanimous adoption. Tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. We are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. Why do we do this? Quite simply because we, in Europe, want to become more competitive. When competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the Member States. We do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. We know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of UMTS, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. I therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain Member States to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. Reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. It is indeed necessary to bring the national and European levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the Member States, with the European level intervening only when absolutely necessary. It is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and I believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems’ interoperability. It might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need Europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. We are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004353.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, migration is putting the European Union under increasing pressure. Networks of smugglers are making billions out of illegal immigrants and, at elections, the public shows its displeasure at EU immigration policy being far from ideally organised. We need Europe-wide strategies on immigration and asylum, and so I am pleased by the Spanish offensive, which I emphatically support. Our expectation must be that speedy and reliable asylum procedures be rapidly implemented, in accordance with our decisions, that we decide on strategies for the deportation illegal immigrants and of those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, and that we make rules for the lawful economic migration of labour, which must be what the Member States require, and within the limits of their capacities and needs. I welcome the way in which decisive steps are being taken to combat illegal immigration, whether by the introduction of the ‘Eurodac’ system or by joint patrols of the external borders by a Eurocorps, doing the best job possible with the aid of satellites and radar. In addition, though, we do of course need help on the spot, in other words, measures to create stability and provide help in the countries of origin. What we must firmly reject, however, is what assails our ears from Europe\'s left. At national level, arguments that we neither want nor need are served up in beer halls, whilst, at the European level, the left-wing clientele is kept happy with demands that the public neither understands nor supports, such as, recently, for all applicants for asylum to have access to the labour market from day one on and to have freedom of movement right across the European Union, even though only 10% of them can acquire refugee status. Thank God the Council and the Commission are supporting us, the Group of the European People\'s Party, in taking this sensible line on immigration and asylum policy. You on the Left – your policy is not accepted. Not only is it not accepted; if it is proceeded with, it will incite more Le Pens. That is something we do not want! That is something we do not need! So I rejoice at the Spanish Presidency\'s commitment and support Commissioner Vitorino\'s initiatives. (Applause from the right)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004355.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking most warmly both rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for the work they have done. Most of all, I would like to speak to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos\' report. As shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE group, let me express my heartfelt gratitude for the good cooperation with Mrs Rodríguez Ramos. Agenda 2000\'s mid-term review is a very important stage for agriculture, as the further development of the common agricultural policy is very important specifically in a global context. The right course must be set at the right time, so I welcome both these own-initiative reports to an extraordinary degree. I see the considerable attention paid by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos in her report to rural development, with all its demands, problems, opportunities and possibilities, in a favourable light. Its continued promotion within the second pillar of the CAP really is an important matter of concern to me, although such promotion must not be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar. It is also important to emphasise the multi-functional agriculture by which jobs can be created, and which also has many other beneficial effects on rural areas as a whole, on their environment, the economy and the maintenance of the cultivated landscape. I would also like to point out that the promotion of all farming concerns, above all those belonging to young farmers, in all Europe\'s regions, is a matter of great concern to me as rural structures depend on the concerns\' existence and on the latter\'s willingness to protect them. Agriculture is to be strengthened and steered towards sustainable development in many parts of Europe, although its competitiveness must not, of course, be disregarded. I urge that care be taken to maintain guarantees of food safety. Consumer confidence and the quality of agricultural products are important principles in the agriculture of today. What is important to me is that this mid-term review should not be taken as an opportunity to generally call into question the existing rules of the CAP. For me, a ‘mid-term review’ means reviewing Agenda 2000 and the current rules. Necessary adjustments must of course be made in response to the results of this review, but Agenda 2000 has to be transposed, and its long-term implications have to be reviewed. Moreover, the problems of enlargement must under no circumstances be mixed up with the discussion we are having today on Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review. The European agricultural model must be secured for the future as well. If compulsory modulation of compensatory payments is to be advocated, it must also be ensured that the Member States cofinance it. I would like to sum up by saying, by way of emphasis, that the promotion of rural development must – as already said – under no circumstances be to the detriment of the CAP\'s first pillar, but additional funds need to be made available for it to be extended. We Members of Europe\'s Parliament therefore look forward with great excitement to the Commission\'s proposals, in response to the mid-term review, for positive development of agriculture, forestry and rural areas, and thus for the future of farmers in Europe.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004360.txt','Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.','Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004365.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention\'s weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union\'s cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004394.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you have spoken of the lengthy payment procedures which have an adverse effect on the image of the European Union in the various actions it takes. We are currently in the middle of a conciliation procedure for the late payment directive, in other words, this is not just a problem in external relations it is also a problem within Europe. I think that it would make sense if you as Commissioner supported the view that the late payment directive should also apply to the European institutions, because then payment could be made, if there was a legal basis, within a certain period of time, namely between 21 and 30 days or, we hope, even sooner. The idea is that the late payment directive could also be applied in these areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, you have spoken of the lengthy payment procedures which have an adverse effect on the image of the European Union in the various actions it takes. We are currently in the middle of a conciliation procedure for the late payment directive, in other words, this is not just a problem in external relations; it is also a problem within Europe. I think that it would make sense if you as Commissioner supported the view that the late payment directive should also apply to the European institutions, because then payment could be made, if there was a legal basis, within a certain period of time, namely between 21 and 30 days or, we hope, even sooner. The idea is that the late payment directive could also be applied in these areas.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004395.txt','Mr President, this Chamber was illegally stormed this afternoon during the debate on Turkey. This is not the first time we have been pestered in this way. This is also a question of the security of the European institutions. Does the Council have any plans to strengthen security in the European institutions?','Mr President, this Chamber was illegally stormed this afternoon during the debate on Turkey. This is not the first time we have been pestered in this way. This is also a question of the security of the European institutions. Does the Council have any plans to strengthen security in the European institutions?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004399.txt','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.','Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004404.txt','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioners individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Mens second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-elect of the Commission, rarely has the formation of a new Commission been accompanied by such high hopes and expectations as has this one. The distrust between citizens and Commission, clearly caused by the inappropriate behaviour of individual Commissioners, is deeply entrenched. However, your appointment to the post of President-elect of the Commission, Professor Prodi, and the appointment of your team, which has now taken place, give cause for great hope. You are the first President of the Commission who will be able to transfer a Commissioner\"s individual area of responsibility if he or she behaves inappropriately, and to dismiss the person concerned. This is a major step in the process of rebuilding trust. Even if the Commission does not reflect the majorities gained in the European elections, the reappointment of reliable Commissioners gives cause for satisfaction. The restructuring of areas of competence should also open up the way for greater efficiency and transparency. We will, though, in the interests of our citizens, be looking at each individual Commissioner extremely thoroughly. This will be a hearing though and not an interrogation. We need credible representatives for it to be a strong Commission. This is why we urgently need the relevant information though. It is necessary that the findings of the Committee of the Wise Men\"s second report be distributed suitably in advance of the hearings. Otherwise, the seeds of a new crisis between Parliament and the Commission will have been sown. Any delay in the appointment of the Commission would not be in the interests of our citizens either. In view of the great tasks ahead, whether it is enlargement, the Intergovernmental Conference or reconstruction in Kosovo, the European Union must be able to act at all levels as soon as possible. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004405.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about this directive is above all a dispute about principles, about whether we, in the European Union of the future, want the principle of harmonisation, that of mutual recognition or the \'third version\' – where do we need the one and where the other? We have achieved only a small partial success with this directive on the EC procedure for approving vehicle types because, of course, national procedures for type approval still apply concurrently with, and in addition to, the directive which is now being laid down. What we want matters here, and I would like to express my thanks to Mr Miller for working so hard to ensure that what we want prevails. This is, of course, not true of national procedures for type approval, which prevail at present and will continue to prevail in future. The success is a very modest one, and we will therefore be abstaining tomorrow, because it does not go far enough for us, because we would actually have liked a general regulation for all buses. I must also say that the Commission\'s proposal was a very, very good one in terms of content and from the points of view of engineering and technology, but must be rejected absolutely on the grounds of logic. At first reading, we had 160 pages of detailed Commission proposals on the table, Members worked out another 110 amendments to them, and I think this House and, at the end of the day, Europe as a whole, is overburdened with this sort of detail. The state of affairs we will be deciding on tomorrow is such that we have now even fixed the curvature of the rear panel of a bus at a normative maximum of 150 mm. Even compared with the European standard cucumber, that is a sensational success!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004408.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004409.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004413.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004419.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004422.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004424.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004425.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100443.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, although, when cooperation between ASEAN and the EU is mentioned, most people take it to refer to the ASEM process, that is to say the meeting of Heads of State and of Government, ASEP, the important meeting of parliamentarians from Europe and Asia, must not be overlooked. Cooperation in this area is so important that one of our partners must not be forgotten. We need both of them! We have, in the course of time, built up very intensive ventures in economic cooperation, and Asia is in any case the European Union\'s most important trading partner. We have built up good relations in the cultural sphere, but what we need is to step up political cooperation, quite simply because geopolitical conflicts and problems have an effect on the European Union. Consider terrorism, consider internationally organised crime, consider migration, consider environmental issues and the many other problems we have. So I welcome the initiatives taken in this report, as well as the Commission proposals, and congratulate the rapporteur on the very precise proposals he has made. I would, though, like to add some of my own, which I believe will further improve cooperation. The first is that we should arrange, in future, for an ASEP meeting to be held, if at all possible, prior to every ASEM Summit, in order to draft tangible proposals and, in second place, in order that we should move on, as Mr Jarzembowski has just said, instead of just putting dialogues on the record in broad terms, to coming to definite decisions and setting out in definite terms for these summits resolutions and objectives that can and must be put into operation. A number of us from this House, led by the distinguished Lord Inglewood, took part in the ASEP meeting from 26 to 28 August, at which we were exemplary in so far as we wrapped up a very solid package in the area of counter-terrorism. There I had the opportunity to act as coordinator, and I will ask you, as President of the Council, and you, as the Commission\'s representative, to incorporate these specific points from the terrorism package at the next ASEM Summit. Let me pick out a number of proposals. We proposed unanimously that the UN should attempt to come up with a uniform definition of terrorism that would then be binding on all our States. We decided on the establishment of a network facilitating cooperation in counter-terrorism, the exchange of information, mutual aid – including aid of a technological nature – in dealing with chemical or bacteriological weapons or the training of experts. At this meeting, we made proposals for security systems in transport by land, sea and air to be improved to defined standards, and we also proposed that, at last, all terrorist acts, including conspiracy, incitement, and membership of terrorist organisations should be classified as serious offences and punished as such in all Asian states. Finally, we also resolved that protection and help be afforded to the victims of terrorism. We will be successful in the struggle against terrorism only when Europe itself takes measures that work, when cooperation with the USA is developed and made to work, and if, at the end of the day, we also succeed in developing first-rate cooperative projects with our Asian partners in the fight against terrorism. I beg you, Commissioner, and you Bertel Haarder, my much-respected former fellow Member of this House, to take account of these proposals from ASEP at the Copenhagen Summit and take them on board. (Applause)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004432.txt','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.','Mr President, I regret having to begin my speech with words of criticism. The fact that the President and the Presidency have left the Chamber does not bode well for this project. Mr Roche was present earlier while we had a very successful and positive discussion of the issue of enlargement, but now we are dealing with the technicalities of making enlargement possible, of giving it substance and life, the Presidency is not there. For such neglect we must reproach the Irish presidency, which has otherwise been so painstaking. Turning to the matter in hand, let me point out – as a number of speakers have already done – that we need a functioning infrastructure if the European Union, and the internal market in particular, are to function. Nothing will work without adequate rail, road and water links. The enlargement of the EU makes it a matter of urgent necessity that the network should be extended; to put it more precisely, what this means is establishing links or rather restoring those that Europe had, in some instances, 70 years ago, but most of which were shut down during the 70 years in which parts of Eastern Europe were under Communist rule. We now have to expend a great deal of effort on closing these gaps. I refer in particular to a number of links running from Austria, my home country, in relation to which I have proposed a number of minor additions, and will take this opportunity to contradict my colleague Mr Jarzembowski. The majority was not fortuitous; it was deliberate and very determined, for the sake of the matter in hand, to close loopholes; we were concerned with, among other things, particularly the rail link between Graz and Spielfeld, which provides a functioning rail link with the new Member State of Slovenia, with the line from Linz to Prague and with what is known as Summerau line. It also mattered to us that the Czech Republic should be connected via a proper and functioning rail link. I would rejoice if, despite the resistance with which this meets, not least from my own country, we could also succeed in incorporating what is called the Southern Railway and the Semmering link into this network. What the Vice-President stated earlier strikes me as being extremely important in the context of our present discussion and the further progress that we hope we can expect. It is not lines on a map that we need; they have to become reality. It is for that reason that we have to make it our concern that a start really is made on these projects, that they are brought to completion, and that funding should be provided for them. If we succeed in this, it can be expected to have a positive effect on employment. We would thereby be implementing some of what we constantly demand in connection with Lisbon.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004436.txt','Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?','Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004447.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, most sincerely for his report because he really has tried to reconcile the very contrary positions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in a document that we can live with. I would also like to support what has already been said today. Animal welfare must be dealt with scientifically and not just emotionally. The avoidance of unnecessary animal transports and the protection of animals during transport are fundamental concerns of agriculture, especially of farmers and producers. It must be ensured, however, that the statutory provisions are realistic and that their enforcement will not place our European farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It must all remain within a sensible economic context and it must also comply with the European Union’s laws. That was also something that Commissioner Byrne mentioned. It is of course in everyone’s interest – farmers, animal welfare and the animals themselves – that animals should arrive at their destination safe and sound and in the best possible condition. This is particularly the case of animals for slaughter because the quality of the meat depends on it. Let me make one observation here, Mr President: once the animals leave the farm, they are in fact no longer the producer’s, the farmer’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the carrier or buyer. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for paying attention to traditional pasturing and transhumance, which is absolutely essential in mountain regions. One last thing. An international organisation called PETA is currently mounting a large-scale campaign in Austria, and I believe in other Member States as well, about the keeping and slaughter of farm animals. The treatment of animals is being compared with the horrors of the Nazi regime. That is an insult to all those who perished in the Holocaust, and I ask you to protest against it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004449.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?','Mr President, Commissioner, first and foremost I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur and to Mr Wieland for the efforts they have expended in summing up the various proposed amendments and interests in this report in such a balanced manner. These two proposals contribute considerably to the implementation of one of the four key principles of the internal market for the freedom to provide services. The new regulation for cross-border services will doubtless improve both the functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness and power to act of enterprises. The strict basic conditions attached to the issue of the EU service provision card – and I am with Mr Wieland on this – are essential, for they will serve to prevent abuses such as illegal entry and bogus contracts. Why do I think we need the directive so much? Three reasons and they are as follows: on account of the economic importance of third-country workers in the EU, in the interests of the competitiveness of enterprises and the proper functioning of the internal market. Therefore, whilst I welcome the strict basic conditions, I would also call for the controls that are to be implemented by the Member States to be made as effective and simple as possible. My last question relates to something people constantly approach me about and is therefore addressed to the Commission. Will the directive prejudice the accession negotiations? How is Article 1 to be interpreted and explained in your view, as this will have important implications, notably for the accession negotiations and for our country, which shares common borders with so many applicant countries?'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004453.txt','Mr President, preventive health care is a major priority for everyone here in this House. We know that tobacco growers in the Member States have different priorities. I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following question, although I have always been, and still am, a non-smoker: does the Commission not think that if tobacco cultivation were to be completely discontinued within the European Union with immediate effect – as called for by a fair number of people – people would just carry on smoking regardless because tobacco products would be imported into the EU?','Mr President, preventive health care is a major priority for everyone here in this House. We know that tobacco growers in the Member States have different priorities. I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following question, although I have always been, and still am, a non-smoker: does the Commission not think that if tobacco cultivation were to be completely discontinued within the European Union with immediate effect – as called for by a fair number of people – people would just carry on smoking regardless because tobacco products would be imported into the EU?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004457.txt','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)','Commissioner, today I have to accuse you of hostility to industry. What do you actually think will happen to European industry now? First we are told that, yes, the end will be in 1998, then it is 2000, next 2002, and now you come along with a presentation and have absolutely nothing to say. How on earth do you think industrialists work? Such a thing could only occur to a functionary who has never had to put even a brass farthing into his own industry. The potential has been there for ages for European industry to have a whole new boom in cosmetics. It is you who have prevented it! In 1996, four million people signed up; they were artists and beautiful women who like using cosmetics. Now you come along and tell us that, in the European Union, we do not want to torture animals any more; instead, we will do it just over the border. This Parliament, the artists, the beautiful women – how stupid do you think we are? What do you take us for? Do you really think we are the sort of racists and xenophobes who will not have dumb beasts tormented here in the European Union, but will let it happen to dogs in Hungary or Poland? That strikes me as monstrous, and as an insult to the four million people who signed their names to protest against such things. You know, there is a fine saying to the effect that ‘the day will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.’ That was not said by some crazy animal rights activist, but by Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the greatest artist who ever lived. Never again, Commissioner, will you be referred to in the same sentence as Leonardo da Vinci. You are certainly not a great artist, you are certainly not sensitive, but I do think you might have some idea of what we are talking about today. I would like to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt for what she has achieved, and especially also Mrs Christina García-Orcoyen. An alliance the like of which you rarely come across, and I think that you, Commissioner, should be afraid of them. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004461.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004462.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people. That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the ageing workforce. Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: \"But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people\". That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the \"ageing workforce\". Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years; today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004465.txt','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.','Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004470.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, digital technology is changing our lives, and this change is taking place whether we like it or not. We have to make use of it and create the relevant statutory framework. I should like to add to what the previous speakers have said by expanding briefly upon a few points. The Lisbon Seminar on Digital Television, held under the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, unfortunately came up with little apart from an incomplete overview of the subject. That is why I am calling for a Digital Europe initiative with clear plans for the harmonised introduction of digital television and the digitalisation of content. Merely setting deadlines according to a motto to the effect that the whole of Europe is to go digital by 2010 is not enough. Secondly, the industry should be given a fair chance to regulate itself along the lines of the code of conduct for added value telecommunications services in Austria. Not everything needs to be over-regulated by the legislator. Thirdly, audiovisual policy concerns infrastructure and content. We know that, where the latter is concerned, we have fallen far behind the United States, despite quota rules. Only those who provide exciting content for a large number of viewers are taken notice of. We must therefore do everything to support European content suppliers and to make their work easier instead of more difficult. Fourthly, the approach according to which content and infrastructure are closely regulated should be maintained. In my own country, the blueprint for the media authority KOMMAUSTRIA presents an exemplary way of doing this in line with the eight draft EU directives we have on the information society. We need to keep pace and ought not to lose any more time.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004475.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures contained in this directive range from drafting water management plans, comprehensive information and hearing rights, and close cooperation between the Member States, to combating water pollution caused by individual pollutants. And considering how long this Chamber has been trying to introduce a framework directive of this kind, I am pleased to be present here today, and I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on being in the happy position of presenting this report to us. However, it is also extremely important to me to point something out that many people actually take for granted. I would still like to highlight this point though: this directive does not constitute any kind of legal basis for diverting water from a Member State’s territory against its will. And by way of reaffirming this once again, I have introduced an amendment – gratifyingly with the support of a large number of Members – and I would be very pleased if Parliament would endorse my proposed amendment tomorrow. It is all about making it clear that water – and this is not the first time this has been mentioned today – is no ordinary commodity but a resource which belongs to the individual EU Member States and which must be protected and treated with the respect due to it. I am aware, and the previous speaker highlighted this, that there are States in the European Union that have problems with water. I believe that every one of us, in every country, could improve the way in which we manage our water and could make use of it in a cleaner way. This applies to every country. But only when each country has done its utmost to conserve its water resources, when literally everything has been done that could have been done in our own countries, only then, in my view, should it be necessary to start thinking in terms of harmonising water usage.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures contained in this directive range from drafting water management plans, comprehensive information and hearing rights, and close cooperation between the Member States, to combating water pollution caused by individual pollutants. And considering how long this Chamber has been trying to introduce a framework directive of this kind, I am pleased to be present here today, and I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on being in the happy position of presenting this report to us. However, it is also extremely important to me to point something out that many people actually take for granted. I would still like to highlight this point though: this directive does not constitute any kind of legal basis for diverting water from a Member State’s territory against its will. And by way of reaffirming this once again, I have introduced an amendment – gratifyingly with the support of a large number of Members – and I would be very pleased if Parliament would endorse my proposed amendment tomorrow. It is all about making it clear that water – and this is not the first time this has been mentioned today – is no ordinary commodity but a resource which belongs to the individual EU Member States and which must be protected and treated with the respect due to it. I am aware, and the previous speaker highlighted this, that there are States in the European Union that have problems with water. I believe that every one of us, in every country, could improve the way in which we manage our water and could make use of it in a cleaner way. This applies to every country. But only when each country has done its utmost to conserve its water resources, when literally everything has been done that could have been done in our own countries, only then, in my view, should it be necessary to start thinking in terms of harmonising water usage.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004477.txt','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.','Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Karl-Heinz Florenz. The fact is that he has studied, analysed and discussed no fewer than 334 densely printed pages – 70 pages on hazardous substances and 264 pages on end-of-life equipment. This is clearly a subject of great complexity, but it is also a very important one, because it affects all the people of the European Union. Our concern is to press ahead with waste separation and to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of separately from household waste. This is a very important issue. We know that we currently have about two billion such items in Europe and that some 210 million of them are disposed of every year. This, when all is said and done, represents six million tonnes and generates costs of approximately EUR 40 billion. When such an amount is involved, we are duty-bound to consider who should meet the cost and in particular how that cost can be most efficiently and effectively controlled in accordance with market principles; we must ensure that the chosen strategy is the cheapest one for taxpayers and consumers and the best one for the environment. We know that there is a huge volume of historical waste. Sixty-six per cent of all these electrical appliances and items of electronic hardware are more than ten years old, while about half of them come from households. This is why compulsory collection targets are so very important. It is also the reason why we have been so firmly committed to the six-kilogram target. We want recycling to be conducted in a truly systematic manner and on a scale which ultimately makes sound economic and budgetary sense. What is important to me about bans on particular substances is that we must only replace such substances with demonstrably better, sustainable and, most importantly, scientifically tested alternatives. This is an area in which the Commission must act, on the one hand to prevent damage and on the other hand to choose the best option in ecological terms.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004478.txt','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.','Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004481.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union\'s collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus\' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament\'s attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna\'s Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004483.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Jonckheer report, as we now need to make it possible to at last give favourable tax treatment to non-food crops. We should welcome the European Union’s declaration that the increased use of renewable sources of energy is one of its objectives and the Commission’s definition of binding objectives and timetables in its ‘Renewable Energies’ White Paper. The right conditions and instruments are needed, though, if these objectives are to be achieved. If the European Union wants to discharge its obligations under international law to reduce greenhouse gases in line with the Kyoto commitments, this directive on the taxation of energy can be only one of many steps that will end up taking us in the right direction. Not only is the use of renewable energy sources CO2-neutral, but it also makes for added value in the regions and creates new and modern jobs in rural areas. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004486.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon peace, and hence also on solidarity. Not only do we talk in those terms, but we live in solidarity and set definite dates. I would remind you that, at its first September sitting, Parliament almost unanimously passed a 19-point resolution on the flood disasters in Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that our second sitting found us voting the Budget lines, and that today, in our third part-session, this mini-plenary is creating the legal basis for all this. We are standing alongside the victims, acting swiftly, unbureaucratically and consistently, and it is for this reason that we have also chosen to use the accelerated procedure for matters of urgent importance. We are keeping our promise, and I would also remind you that we have doubled the proposal by the Council and the Commission for EUR 500 million to be allocated to the Fund. We also call on the Council not to alter our definition of a major disaster – over EUR 1 billion in damage in any one country or over 0.5% of its GDP – as any change would nullify the consistency of our stance. We call upon the Council to take up the proposal from Parliament and the Commission and make it a resolution. We can and must tell the victims that, subject to the agreement of the Council on 21 October 2002, we will see to it that money can flow to the affected regions from 1 November onwards. Agnes Schierhuber and I are from an affected region in Lower Austria and represent many who know how much damage was done and how much hope has been kindled by the policy of acting speedily and naming specific dates. We rejoice and are also rather proud to be able to show by this example how we not only talk and make promises, but are also capable of fixing dates and acting promptly. (Applause)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100449.txt','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.','Madam President, the European Union is beginning a new stage in its history. The greatest enlargement in 47 years has been completed. The EU’s population is rising to half a billion people, and one of the biggest single markets in the world is coming into being. This is a source of hope, above all to young people, who have no first-hand experience or knowledge of the Second World War or of the Cold War that followed it. They are so used to peace that they do not see the peace policy dimension of this enlargement as the most important thing about it. Nevertheless, this is probably the most important thing associated with what happened on 1 May – the enlargement, or, as one might say, the reunification of Europe. What we now have to do is to work towards partnership with our immediate and more distant neighbours and make the best possible use of it in the interests of all parties. It is important that a Europe that is still grappling with its own constitution should work together to further the common interest and think in regional terms. Only together will we be able to cope with the challenges that the enlarged Union will face. Only together will we be able to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and win the war on organised crime. In this, investment in securing the EU’s new external borders is every bit as important as the use of resources for scrapping dangerous nuclear power stations. The European Union now needs time to let enlargement become a success. It is logical that the next stage should involve Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – the last of which would be very desirable as a new Member State. As far as Turkey is concerned, it is time that we appealed to the Council to ask the Commission to add to its report on the political criteria – which has not yet been produced – a study of the potential impact on the Structural and Agricultural Policies and on the EU’s institutions.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004496.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e -procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004499.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'10045.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away; the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004501.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is splendid, and it is even more splendid that we will, in a few minutes, be able to welcome the current Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan. I would of course like to take this moment to recall that there have already been three UN Secretaries-General who hailed from Europe: Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld  and Kurt Waldheim, and that Europe is home to two permanent UN offices, in Geneva and Vienna. This means that we share responsibility to a large extent. Not only do we have claims upon each other, but we also have to take joint action and support each other. The most recent UN Secretary-General to come from Europe, Kurt Waldheim, wrote this in his book ‘Die Antwort’: ‘I have to concede that the UN, notwithstanding all our efforts and our unquestionable sincerity, has not yet managed to break with the political habits and attitudes of past centuries and to come to terms with the new realities with which we have to live. Its capacity for effective action is limited by its own faults. The charge is laid against us that it produces more rhetoric than action, that it is ineffective and is often ignored, and that the system under which every state has a vote allows the developing world to dominate the decision-making process, in that the number of votes bears no relation to the capacity to act.’ The same could also be said of the European Union; both of us are in need of reform. The two of us have a great deal in common. Success is dependent on political will and the determination of the Member States. It depends on acceptance and implementation – of Community law in one case, and of the United Nations Charter in the other. It is dependent upon multilateral cooperation, global responsibility and upon our thinking along Community-oriented lines rather than nationalistically. We can make our contribution if France and England leave the Security Council and the EU joins it; we would thereby be reforming the EU and our own Common Foreign and Security Policy, and forcing through a reform of the UN Security Council.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004505.txt','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.','Mr President, the attendance in this Chamber shows that there is no dispute about this agreement, that Members want it, and I am sure we will vote for Switzerland and for this agreement by a great majority tomorrow. We want closer cooperation in Europe. We want more dialogue. We want to analyse problems pragmatically, find compromises, although on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, and we want, at the end of the day, to vote in the proper manner. We often see the Swiss people voting on issues and as a democrat I am constantly delighted by the democratic attitude of Switzerland. The peaceful settlement of conflict – i.e. democracy – versus the declaration of war. In fact, war never has been a solution for the people of Europe. We need ground rules for democracy, and in the end we must also abide by them. After over 50 years of a policy of peace, the German Foreign Minister acting as President of the Council has called on the military to take a decision. That should set us thinking. I believe it is important that we use democratic methods to safeguard peace. Now he, as President of the Council, and the 12 prime ministers have taken an arbitrary decision without any legal basis against a Member State. It has no legal basis and in particular it goes against the European institutions. The decision with regard to Austria was taken without any de facto participation by the Commission, without the participation of the Council and, of course, without the participation of Parliament. In my view, that raises a number of problems, especially for Switzerland. And I regard the signs of weakness the euro is currently showing as a judgement by the international community of this conflict within the European Union. The crux of the matter is that this is a conflict between the prime ministers and the European institutions, a conflict that is putting a spanner in the European works and creating insecurity. In fact, Austria was always seen as the blue-eyed boy in matters of human rights and democracy. I think Austria has fared very well with its neutrality over the past decades, a neutral position between east and west. In joining the European Union we clearly committed ourselves to the west, with the aim of preventing any future military conflicts. But that means talking to each other, meeting each other, analysing things pragmatically, finding compromises. I must say that in Austria, too, it is now time to review the situation for, when it comes to their referendum, the Swiss people will be looking very carefully at how the 14 prime ministers decide. In Austria, Mr Haider resigned on 1 May. He no longer plays an active role in Austrian politics. I think it is high time the sanctions against Austria were lifted and I believe the prime ministers should also apologise to the people of Europe for choosing to go down a road that is unacceptable to Europe. I demand the immediate suspension of the sanctions against Austria and I believe this decision with regard to Austria will be of the utmost importance to future plebiscites and referenda in Europe.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004511.txt','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004526.txt','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.','We are in favour of using a climate tax on a national basis to achieve targets without putting any additional burden on individuals or companies. This does not mean introducing a European tax; it is a call for national tax rates in this area to be harmonised. This should strengthen international competitiveness in the long term. The economy is based on secure energy supplies.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004528.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my report on EQUAL takes the form of an opinion delivered as part of the process of consultation on a new Community initiative, whose objective is to promote transnational cooperation and through it new methods of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The report was a major undertaking because it also incorporates opinions from four further committees – from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This Community initiative succeeds the two forerunner programmes ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT and has a much smaller budget of around EUR 2.8 billion. The initiative adopts a completely new approach, which is to develop innovative employment models within transnational geographical or sectoral development partnerships. The intention is clear: targeted projects are to be developed at transnational level, projects which are based on the employment policy guidelines of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. This objective is very much to be welcomed and also meets with a broad consensus in this House. In addition, EQUAL should feed into the National Action Plans for employment and its implementation should be able to be monitored through these Action Plans. It is an important Community initiative which, together with the three other initiatives, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG, is financed out of the Structural Funds. In my report I have tried to reduce excessive administrative expenditure and to build greater openness and flexibility into the system of development partnerships. I consider technical support to be necessary but, given the problems with the former TAOs, no new TAOs should be set up without Parliament’s approval so as to prevent political responsibility from being passed down to the technical assistance level. Nevertheless, technical assistance is necessary. Particular attention is also paid to the dissemination of results and learning from each other by identifying best practice, with special emphasis on mainstreaming. I have endeavoured to secure the widest possible support for the report. This has meant a reduction in the number of amendments – from over 100 in committee to 22 for the plenary – which has also created numerous opportunities for compromises. A compromise has now also been reached on the issue of asylum seekers. However, in this context, Madam President, to allow us to work out the details, I should like to request that the vote on the EQUAL report be held not tomorrow but on Wednesday. I believe that it is important for the Community initiative to be able to begin on time and therefore for the report to receive overwhelming support so that the Commission is also obliged to take into consideration the constructive proposals made by the European Parliament, because Parliament put the appropriations for EQUAL in the reserve precisely so as to ensure that Members’ ideas were also reflected in this Community initiative. In this connection, the European Parliament is also justified in insisting that it should be possible to amend the thematic priorities only after a further hearing in Parliament. EQUAL should live up to its name, and this is my firm intention. It should provide equal opportunities for all those at a disadvantage in the European Union. It should prevent society from splintering. It should prevent exclusion from being part of everyday life. Everyone should be given the opportunity to benefit here from a common initiative regardless of their age, gender or origin. That is my intention and I would ask the House to give this report overwhelming support!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004529.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100453.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission\'s White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe\'s citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people\'s fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe\'s citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission\'s White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004532.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.','Mr President, Commissioner, I find that I can sleep well next to a German, French or British nuclear power station. As far as is humanly possible, an MCA ought to be excluded during routine operation. I cannot sleep so well, if at all, next to the nuclear power stations in the candidate countries. May I make a personal confession at this point, as Mr Swoboda did earlier: I am a passionate advocate of the swift expansion of the European Union. All the States which have already submitted their applications for accession are a part of Europe. They belong to us and we belong to them. However, I believe that it not just our right, but also plainly and simply our duty, to point out that nuclear power stations in the applicant countries have very different standards of operation. Nowadays, we do not get into a Zeppelin if we want to fly to Brussels or Strasbourg; we are delighted to have ultra-modern planes at our disposal. Furthermore, we also need to know exactly how these nuclear power stations stand with regard to computer changeover difficulties for the year 2000. Allow me to quote the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who said on 9 November: “if the candidate countries– Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria – want to take up accession negotiations with the EU, then they must submit to the European Council of Helsinki by the middle of December specific closure plans for the three non-convertible nuclear power stations”. And again on 11 November: “in the case of nuclear power stations which are already in operation, EU standards must be the guiding rule.” I in no way share the opinion of one Austrian socialist minister who considered that there should be no discussions until the nuclear power stations are shut down. This is completely the wrong approach and I fully and firmly reject it. I am convinced that we will not have difficulties with nuclear power stations in the west in terms of the changeover to the year 2000. I do not have the same conviction for nuclear power stations in the east. Something could go wrong and we need to offer assistance. Chernobyl taught us that the term “neighbourhood” simply has to be redefined in the case of nuclear plants. At that time we were all next-door neighbours. Greater flexibility on the part of the applicant countries should be expected in the name of good neighbourliness. I too would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to offer him more than just good advice to take with him and to ask whether he perhaps needs an aspirin C. I should be happy to fetch him one.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004547.txt','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)','Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener  Schnitzel , and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, Christian Democrats naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004556.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Israeli peace process has stalled before it even got started. More’s the pity! This is hardly surprising and no reason for concern but it does show how important it is for the European Union and the European Parliament to support the peace process between Israel and Syria which came to a standstill four years ago and which is fundamental to peace in the Near East. With regard to the security policy dimension of this peace process, patience is called for. That President Clinton would like another foreign policy success at the end of his term of office is understandable but should not result in any hasty outcome to the negotiations. If the European Union is one of the key donors in this region and wants to be taken seriously politically, it needs not only one voice, but also, and above all, a balance. It must avoid a reputation for partiality, which it has not always managed to do in the past and which is why it has a low profile in the Near East. In this respect, I wonder just how coordinated the European Union’s foreign policy really is. This question does not only apply to the division of roles between the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, and the European Union High Representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana; it also applies to the invitation to the Libyan Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. I am reminded of the former Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who was so highly active in the Near East; he caused more harm than good with his invitation to Gaddafi all that time ago. As regards the security policy dimension of the return of the Golan Heights, the EU must make it clear that such a step can only take place at the end of a peace process with Syria, not at the beginning. The quid pro quo on the part of Syria must go beyond normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel. Even in an era of rockets which can overfly everything, the risk that the Golan Heights might be used to shoot into Israeli territory as in 1967 must be eliminated. This calls for an efficient monitoring system. Secondly, peace with Syria must also result in peace with the Lebanon. The objective of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, to withdraw Israeli troops from the safety zone in the South of Lebanon by July 2000 must be supported. But Syria, which still has a considerable military presence in the Bekaa valley and influence on terrorist organisations in Lebanon, must take similar steps. It is up to Syria to mop up at least part of this terrorist scene in Lebanon. The latest terrorist attack in Northern Israel demonstrates just how urgently this is needed. The time is right for peace between Israel and Syria; given his age, Head of State Assad wants to put his own house in order before handing over to his son. One basic requirement is missing, however, namely a democratic constitution. Apart from this, the EU can offer the following: its model for achieving peace through economic interpenetration, open borders and no customs barriers must be presented as an attractive model throughout the Near East.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004559.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur. In his request to speak he referred to an important field, that is the institutional field and everything concerned with it. What I should like to do is to refer to the opportunities that this system offers us. The paper deals with combating the counterfeiting of travel documents. It is a system for registration and comparison and thus an instrument that also helps to combat illegal entry and illegal immigration or the committing of criminal acts under a false identity. That means that in order to be able to combat this phenomenon, which is partly a phenomenon of organised crime, we need new and very effective instruments. One instrument is the system discussed here to combat the counterfeiting of travel documents. After all, it should also help us to combat the crime of smuggling, which is on the increase. If the figures are correct, then we have in the meantime learned that almost the same criminal earnings are obtained from smuggling as from drug crime and with considerably less risk than with drug-related crime. I have been given access to figures that show that of the 400,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who come to the European Union every year, at least 200,000 are brought into the European Union by smugglers. These counterfeit documents are very often used in smuggling cases. In other areas too, where there is asylum abuse, there is counterfeiting of documents that are passed on from one person to another. Unfortunately this has become part of a system. In this regard, the system that Mr Newton Dunn described should be welcomed and supported. I should, however, like to mention one point with which we are not happy. That is the fact that in parallel we have developed the FADO system that allows us to compare original documents and counterfeit documents pictorially. In reality, we therefore have two systems that should be amalgamated in one system. Because rather than coming across counterfeit documents it is of course better if we have previously compared original and counterfeit documents via the FADO system. That means that the aim should not be to run two parallel systems side by side, but to unite both of them in one system in the interests of efficiency. Overall this action to combat counterfeit documents by comparing information that is not person-related is to be welcomed. But we should try to be more efficient so that two systems do not run in parallel but are associated with each other so that something is achieved: so that with the Schengen information system and the EURODAC information system together we can contribute to a safer Europe.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(3.166658397214988,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,3,'1004564.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, 11 September is almost upon us, the first anniversary of that day when two aircraft, piloted by terrorists belonging to al—Qa’ida, crashed into the World Trade Centre, caused both towers to collapse, killed thousands of people and, at a stroke, changed the world – or, at least so we thought at the time. There have indeed been changes. Under UN mandate, an alliance against terrorism was forged. For the first time, a crisis was declared to be a matter for NATO, Article 5 of whose Treaty was invoked. The American President Bush called for the head of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire who headed up the al—Qa’ida network, and the war against terrorism met with its first significant success in Afghanistan itself, where the fundamentalist Taliban regime, which was generally inhumane and in particular hostile to women, was driven from power and an interim government under President Karzai, which is putting down democratic roots, was established. One year on, we are of course all aware that the struggle against terrorism, as President Bush himself once said, will be a long one at various levels, and that quick victories are illusory. In Afghanistan itself, the Karzai government enjoys de facto power only in Kabul. The authority of the various provincial rulers belonging to different tribes is undiminished, and has, in some instances, even been reinforced, a fact demonstrated just as much by the murder of Commander Massoud as by the murder of Afghanistan\'s Vice-President Abdul Qadir, who had incurred the enmity of rival drug baron, supporters of Osama Bin Laden and of the Taliban, but possibly also of members of the Northern Alliance who had felt themselves bypassed. It is also far from clear whether or not Osama Bin Laden is still alive. What is beyond doubt is that the al—Qa’ida network has regenerated itself and reorganised both its guerrilla organisation, which is active not only in the neighbouring Pakistan, and also its sources of finance, which continue to flow in abundance. Anyone reading today\'s Herald Tribune will find a sobering report on the transfers of gold to Sudan through channels running from Pakistan and Iran. This means that the al—Qa’ida network and the Taliban militias still have large reserves of finance at their disposal, derived from the cultivation and sale of opium. Set against the sums involved here, the aid given by the European Union towards stabilising the situation in Afghanistan looks rather modest, even though the EU has become the largest donor of funds for this purpose. There is no doubt that we have to do this in order to bring peace to this country once under Soviet Communist occupation and ravaged by decades of civil war and thus make a contribution to consolidating the crisis region between Pakistan, Iran, India and the unstable Asiatic part of the former Soviet Union. We also have to do it for reasons of self-protection. Europe is a destination not only for Afghan drugs, but also for illegal immigrants, in the number of whom there has been a significant increase on the borders between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria over the past year. There is, then, a need for humanitarian aid just as much as for targeted measures in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, a fight we will certainly have to carry on for a long time yet, and one in which we can expect no quick victories. Yet do it we must, if we are to demonstrate to the USA that we are to be taken seriously as a partner in an alliance against terrorism. Relations with the USA in the aftermath of 11 September have, to put it mildly, been beset by irritations. We are both saddened – Europeans when America goes it alone, and the USA by the European Union\'s lack of political unity and its military weakness, both exemplified by the EU\'s line on Iraq, which has to date been less than coherent. Also symptomatic of this are the USA\'s threatening gestures directed at Baghdad, which are not always credible. What is needed on both sides of the Atlantic is coherent crisis management combating not only the symptoms of international terrorism, but also and especially its causes, as rightly demanded by the former White House security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Developing such a strategy to pull the plug on the crises in the Middle East, settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and neutralise Islamic political fundamentalism wherever it rears its head – and it has its boltholes in Europe itself – to all these things, the European Union can and must make a substantial contribution. EU aid in Afghanistan is an essential building block in this. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100457.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Liikanen said at the Commission hearings that we will be around 1.2 million jobs short in the e-commerce sector by the year 2002. Providing the quantities and quality needed therefore represents a real challenge. Commissioner Schreyer, I should like to ask you if you can really tell us which budgetary lines create, maintain or destroy factories and/or jobs? Is there in fact a valuation which we can use as a starting point to say which budgetary lines support the creation of new jobs? Does DG IV have any scientific studies or papers on the subject? If we have a budgetary procedure, can we then establish if the main priority which we have now set at European level has been achieved, and where new jobs are being created or where new jobs are being destroyed? Today in question time I asked the Commission how many jobs are lost if manufacturing plants making products which cannot be exported because they are banned in Europe are closed down. Commissioner Byrne quite rightly said that, as far as he was concerned, public health took priority. This morning we discussed environmental protection. Then it was said that environmental protection took priority. I think we should find an objective procedure which safeguards new jobs. We can only do so if there is proper representation of the confederations of industry, especially confederations of small enterprises employing up to 10 people. I think that this sector should receive far more support in the future, including at European level, because this is where jobs are created, this is where new products are invented and where the future is shaped. I think that also represents an opportunity in relation to the enlargement of the EU. We must endeavour above all to include small enterprises. That is an important function and social dialogue is needed here. I would be pleased to see new initiatives in this area.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004572.txt','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!','Mr President, the Commission\'s proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system has much to recommend it. However, there is also much – if not even more – to criticise. The objective is positive. In the future more freight is to be shifted from road to other more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Ideally, this should check the growth in road freight transport resulting from enlargement of the Union. For my country, Austria, this is an absolutely fundamental political issue. The instruments provided to achieve this are also sensible: start-up support for new, non-road freight transport services, which should however be economically viable in the medium term; support for launching freight services or facilities of strategic European interest, and common learning actions to foster more cooperation in the freight logistics market. Working together makes us strong, instead of everyone being against everyone else and opposing anything new. The individual amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the Bradbourn report are also good. The more SME-friendly minimum subsidy threshold deserves a particular mention here. That, however, is the absolute limit as far as the praise is concerned. All of the measures that are intended, in the truest sense of the word, to be put in train here are long overdue. For far too long we have talked about more environmentally friendly forms of transport without taking appropriate measures. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our roads are full and congested while rail and inland waterways have not for some time been performing at the levels of which they could and should be capable. A critical question mark should also be placed over the funds allocated. EUR 115 million may be a lot of money, but it is spread over five years and the Marco Polo programme is a different situation yet again for all of the measures that were mentioned just now. Last but not least, I would lament a further serious shortcoming at European Community level. The way that Europe drafts its legal texts, the public will never understand us. With this in mind, I quote from the fifth recital, as also amended by the European Parliament: \'The Marco Polo programme features three types of action: (1) modal shift actions, which should focus on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to the more environmentally acceptable short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways; such actions must not lead to a shift of freight flows from short sea transport, rail or inland waterways to another of these modes, unless the share of freight transport by road in the transport chain is thereby substantially reduced.\' Does anyone here understand this language? I find it hard going even when I am reading the text!'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004574.txt','Mr President, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, ladies and gentlemen, corruption is an issue of significance in some countries desirous of joining the EU, and we are currently engaging in accession negotiations with them. Funds gained by privatisation have often disappeared from these countries in a questionable manner. Do you believe it would be possible to resolve these issues within the framework of accession negotiations, or at least to apply unambiguous legal provisions in this area?','Mr President, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, ladies and gentlemen, corruption is an issue of significance in some countries desirous of joining the EU, and we are currently engaging in accession negotiations with them. Funds gained by privatisation have often disappeared from these countries in a questionable manner. Do you believe it would be possible to resolve these issues within the framework of accession negotiations, or at least to apply unambiguous legal provisions in this area?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004583.txt','Mr President, I want to ask about Europe’s next big ‘referendum’, namely the elections to the European Parliament on 13 June next year. What is the Presidency contemplating doing to increase voter turnout on that day, along with their understanding of the European Union?','Mr President, I want to ask about Europe’s next big ‘referendum’, namely the elections to the European Parliament on 13 June next year. What is the Presidency contemplating doing to increase voter turnout on that day, along with their understanding of the European Union?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004584.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area; we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004592.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has set itself four major objectives. Firstly, the necessary reforms within the institutions and the EU Member States. Secondly, the enlargement of the European Union of the 15 and the associated discussion about the borders of Europe and the European Union, which we demanded, and which has been taken up by President Prodi. Thirdly, the role of a self-assured, dynamic European Union in the world. Fourthly, boosting public confidence in the realisation of these goals and in our work. Extending a special financial aid package to Tajikistan is part of the growing responsibility we have for the democratic and peaceful development of world politics based on the recognition of human rights. The extraordinary financial aid package for Armenia and Georgia adopted on 17 November 1997 also allowed for the possibility of providing Tajikistan with a similar aid package, as soon as this country – to amplify the comments made by Paul Rübig – reaches agreement with the IMF. This agreement is now in place. Following two emergency loans, which were granted after the conflict in December 1997 and April 1998, the IMF approved a three-year programme for Tajikistan worth USD 128 million in June 1998, in order to consolidate the stabilisation successes and achieve sustained growth. In addition, on 11 December 1998, on the initiative of the IMF and the World Bank, a meeting of the Consultative Group was called in order to improve access to the financial facilities that these institutions provide for the benefit of Tajikistan and other Newly Independent States particularly hard hit by the external effects of the Russian crisis. That is why it is right and proper, for the sake of our own needs, but also of our responsibility on the world political scene, which will undoubtedly increase, to lend our support to this report, together with the amendments today. Finally, permit me, as I am the last speaker and also as I am a newcomer amongst the last speakers in this Parliament, to provide a little more food for thought. Firstly, I would just like to make clear, and I believe I am expressing exactly what many people feel here, that I am pleased, that we are pleased, to be able to participate in this process here in this Parliament. Secondly, although we know where there is still room for improvement, we are doing sound work that is growing in importance. We can only do this work, however, because we are accompanied and supported by competent, committed, reliable colleagues and parliamentary employees in our groups and in our committees as well as in the course of everyday parliamentary life. Thank you to all those who support us and assist us in our work! (Applause)  I would like to express two further wishes, since we are fast approaching Christmas. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of giving home affairs in the Member States a more European flavour. Let us make a greater success in the New Year of fixing our work in the consciousness of the Member States and of the citizens. On behalf of my group I would like to wish all those with whom I work and my fellow parliamentarians a Happy Christmas! (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004594.txt','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004605.txt','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen; we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100461.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God\'s creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004610.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Bonino personally for all her work. The Ottawa Convention represents an important step in the international campaign to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I therefore very much welcome the fact that this new regulation is to implement that convention with an EU strategy for improving the coordination, coherence, transparency and control of these actions on mines. The European Union also has to live up to its claim to play a leading role in this area. The Austrian Federal Government has always given this subject the highest priority. As we have already heard today, Parliament has been dealing with this subject for many years. Parliament is the driving force behind all these efforts, and I believe that we should step up these efforts still further. At this point I wish to specifically stress that we need to call upon further States to sign or promptly ratify the Ottawa Convention, so as to assist international coordination and rehabilitation of mine victims. First and foremost, the EU Member States should sign the Convention. I regard this as a duty of solidarity within the European Community. Mines are of course a great obstacle to reconstruction in these countries and to the return of refugees. As long as this danger exists, it will be very difficult to persuade people who have fled their homes to return. The European Union is often the most important contributor to financing de-mining actions, and international actions are carried out in the relevant countries. The problem of anti-personnel mines is too big for the regions directly affected, and also for the refugees in the areas involved, so that without international cooperation it is not possible to provide effective support here. The international community must adopt a coherent and coordinated approach. Further progress needs to be made with support for de-mining programmes, assistance for mine victims, and research and technological development. It is imperative for a ban to be imposed on producing mines in the EU and on exporting mines from the EU. This objective should be an absolute priority for us all.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004611.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to underestimate the importance and potential implications of this historic opportunity to unite our continent and live in peace. As politicians, we must give this momentous process our unequivocal support, even though there are still many aspects to be discussed and negotiated. The political vision endures. The responsibility that we parliamentarians bear at this time must enable future generations to live in peace and freedom on our continent. The standard of living will rise in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a result of a market-orientated economy, and underpinned by democratic forms of government. Even though it will not be easily won, we have chosen the right path. We Austrians are particularly interested in and affected by enlargement in view of our geographical position. I personally remember the Iron Curtain only too well, because my farm was only a few kilometres away from it. I would still much rather face the problems that have arisen as a result of opening the borders, than have to continue living with my back to the wall of the Iron Curtain, as we had to for decades. As well as giving enlargement unequivocal support, I would stress that it should take place as soon as possible. Agriculture, in particular, has an important role to play, because far more people are employed in this sector in the candidate countries than they are in the EU. We must tell the candidate countries that they must make the necessary structural changes, so as to be competitive in the future market, and they must increase the number of employment opportunities available in rural areas. The SAPARD programme provides an excellent opportunity to this end, and I welcome with open arms the fact that the Commission has already approved six programmes. Transitional periods and arrangements should be kept as short as possible, but one thing I would stress is that the acquis communautaire must be adopted in full. Particular attention should be given to health, plant health and, above all, the environmental conditions and issues that are so important to us as consumers, and also as farmers, so as to maintain consumer confidence. The reform of the common agricultural policy must form an efficient basis for the multifunctional activities that the farmers perform in all areas. The fundamental alignment of the European agricultural model and the development of the rural area will not produce a conflict of interests between the farmers of the EU and those in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We want to solve problems together and go forward into the future together.'),(2.1111055981433253,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,2,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004618.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.','Mr President, Commissioner, competitiveness is theme number 1 in Europe. Every company, every entrepreneur, is of course out principally to create a monopoly. The entrepreneur himself or company itself would like to have a monopoly. Suppliers and customers are naturally opposed to this so that, here too, there is pressure in the direction of a market economy. I believe – and this is what makes it so interesting – that the market economy is there in the first place for the benefit of the consumer and therefore stands in the way of monopolists. The consumer creates jobs through his decision to purchase products and services which are of use to him. I believe that this triangle of success we have, with the company on the one side with its owners and shareholders, the employees on the second side and the consumers on the third side just has to be successful. Everyone must gain some advantage. We must see to it that there is a win-win situation here and that everyone benefits when products and services are offered which are bought by consumers. What we need as a priority here is a development initiative. We must ensure that we see electronic commerce and many other technologies introduced quickly and efficiently. We need a dramatically strengthened and improved infrastructure. In very many areas in this regard, we are still limping along behind. Finally, research too. We are discussing minimum amounts for research here. Having new and efficient products, however, is precisely what the consumer values. This is where we also need a new culture at European level. In the European social partnership – and here I should like to support Hans-Peter Martin – we need new emphases which permit a win-win situation arising for all three types of participant: namely for companies, employees and consumers. In Europe too, then, we shall have the chance to live in prosperity in the future. If today we consider the enlargement of the European Union, then prosperity is one of the central and most important questions in connection with enlargement as well. I should like to ask the Commissioner to ensure that, where the European budget too is concerned, we have a situation in which more money is put into budget lines which promote jobs.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004622.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the opposite view. As you will be aware, the current practice is for airline passengers’ details to be forwarded in order to prevent and combat terrorism, but it all happens without a legal basis, and so it is illegal. It is for that reason that we must aim to bring this illegal and unregulated situation to as speedy an end as possible and to combat terrorism effectively. You will be aware that it was not least at the insistence of this House that the Commission entered into negotiations, and these have produced a creditable result. Much of what we called for has been incorporated in this draft agreement. There is room for further work on it, but it does, as a basis for an agreement, enable us in future to transmit, on a legal basis, data needed in the fight against terrorism from the European Union to the USA. That is what we should be aiming to do; we can then carry on working on an agreement. We will continue to monitor its progress and can always appeal to the ECJ in the event of any agreement being breached, but our aim must be to establish, now and as quickly as possible, a contractual status, a legal basis, that will enable us to take proper action in the interests of our citizens’ safety and in combating terrorism. That is why I am in favour of this being put on the agenda as a matter of topical and urgent importance.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004625.txt','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.','Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union\'s future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas; how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council\'s secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'100463.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production; connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield; moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004631.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, you know that as the rapporteur on this issue, this is of great interest to me. As regards your current statement, which is hopefully more comprehensive and detailed on paper than what we have just heard, I have two main problems: firstly, how do you verify that the funds provided by the European Union for the information campaign are actually being used efficiently and constructively, and in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations and the basic political message, in the Member States? I ask this question because I have the feeling that we have become more of a channel for EU funding and are relinquishing our leading role in the information campaign under the guise of subsidiarity. And secondly: what do you intend to do to persuade the Ministers responsible, especially the ECOFIN Council, and include them in this much-needed action programme in the information campaign on a mandatory basis, not just in an advisory capacity?','Mr President, Commissioner, you know that as the rapporteur on this issue, this is of great interest to me. As regards your current statement, which is hopefully more comprehensive and detailed on paper than what we have just heard, I have two main problems: firstly, how do you verify that the funds provided by the European Union for the information campaign are actually being used efficiently and constructively, and in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations and the basic political message, in the Member States? I ask this question because I have the feeling that we have become more of a channel for EU funding and are relinquishing our leading role in the information campaign under the guise of subsidiarity. And secondly: what do you intend to do to persuade the Ministers responsible, especially the ECOFIN Council, and include them in this much-needed action programme in the information campaign on a mandatory basis, not just in an advisory capacity?'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(1.0555527990716627,1.0555527990716627,1000,'European_Union',348,1,'1004639.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: \'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union\'s objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Union_and_the_United_Nations',1,1,'100448.txt','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.','Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Union_energy_label',4,1,'1004175.txt','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!','Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that ¾ of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Union_energy_label',4,1,'1004221.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is of course interested in international development and especially the opportunity to play a part in shaping policy within the WTO. We have two problems here. On the one hand, our Committee\'s resources do not permit us to monitor and influence the debate to the extent that would be genuinely useful. On the other, we have many parliamentarians from other countries – primarily from developing countries – who cannot meet the costs, even for travel and accommodation, in order to attend these debates and play a role in this decision-making process. Firstly, we want Europe to commit itself to playing a leading role in global affairs. The WTO and the capacity to make decisions on matters of WTO policy are extremely important, especially for our small and medium enterprises. Secondly, we want to press ahead with standardisation, because what we want to push for first and foremost, in terms of legislation, is mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation within the European internal market. In this context, standardisation is essential and fundamental. Thirdly, in the energy field, we want to ensure that the intelligent energy programmes, but also the ALTENER, SAVE and SYNERGIE programmes, are used intensively and that the Commission sets priorities here, especially for our energy self-sufficiency, where the aim, after all, is to achieve an increase from 50% to 70%. In this context, more intensive measures need to be adopted as a matter of urgency to safeguard and secure our energy supply. Let me make one further point, which originates from Parliament alone: we want Basle II to have its own action programme. We are concerned that the equity capital requirements for our SMEs will not be achievable by 2006, and that this will precipitate a massive number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. So let\'s do our homework here first.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Union_energy_label',4,1,'1004314.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there will again be elections to Parliament in 2004. European citizens, every one of them, will be wondering which piece of the cake they have got, and whether that cake had been fairly shared out. I take the view, as a representative of the Group of the European People\'s Party, that the cake that is being shared out is a big one, for the bigger the cake, the more fairly it can be shared out. When theorising about how the cake should be shared out, we should, then, always consider the way we support and promote those who bake it. As a matter of course, most of Europe\'s bakers of cakes are small and medium-sized enterprises, which produce the cake by the sweat of their brows. I believe that our most important future concern must be with those people who work in these enterprises, and, let me underline this, two thirds of workers are employed by these firms with fewer than 250 on the payroll. What is of the utmost importance to us in the political world, they produce 80% of taxes. I believe, then, that we must get started where we have the best chance of future success. We have all set ourselves the goal of becoming, in eight years\' time, the highest-performing and most competitive region in the world. All I can say to that is that we urgently need to step on the gas if we are actually to achieve this objective, for our citizens\' sake. We have had a few crises in recent years, such as, for example, the support given to the former Yugoslavia, the BSE crisis, and Afghanistan. Now a package arrives in this House that gives me a lot to think about; I mean the provisions of Basle II. In essence, the provisions of Basle II are quite right. We have to see to it that firms have sufficient equity and venture capital. If these conditions are incapable of being fulfilled, regulations cannot be enforced. If we want these provisions to be capable of being complied with – as we all do – then we need a Green Paper and a plan of action in good time, so that our small and medium-sized enterprises will again be able to pay their wages in 2005. In the event of Basle II entering into force without our having either a Green Paper or an action plan, then, in 2005, when it enters into force, there will be mass lay-offs and mass bankruptcies. We do not have much time left to us, and action is urgently needed. This applies especially to firms in the countries that want to join the EU; mention equity capital there, and you find that most firms do not have any at all, and that there, the borrowing of capital from outside sources, along with bank credit, prevail to the exclusion of all else. If a liquidity squeeze means that small and medium-sized banks are unable to make cash and its equivalent available, then big problems are coming our way. That we still have matters outstanding as regards a secure future was shown to us by 11 September. We must see to it that we press on with security of energy supply by means of the Synergy , Energy, and Altener programmes. We must look to research to make resources available for the post-2003 era. Training and continuing education will demand enormous effort of us with ‘ e -learning’ and ‘ e -business’. The Trans-European Networks, too, are waiting to be made reality. We must also see to it that the European Union becomes more active in the WTO. We must ensure that its Parliamentary Assembly takes on a monitoring role as soon as possible, and we need financial resources for those parliamentary delegates from the least developed countries, who at present cannot even afford to travel to its meetings. We must engage in training and continuing education there, for these are people we must integrate. We have to show them how they too can make the cake as large as it can be. (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'European_Union_energy_label',4,1,'1004598.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.','Mr President, Commissioner, as we speak about energy efficiency today, we naturally think primarily of the security of energy supplies, and security of supply is undoubtedly an issue that is very high on the agenda of the European Union. For that reason we wish to aim for a reduction in energy intensity. The political objective for us at the present time is a 2.5% reduction. It goes without saying that the widely divergent starting points of the 15 Member States must be taken into account when such targets are set. That is precisely why we believe that this target must be binding, and the process should begin in that country where the level of energy efficiency is highest, the country most capable of effecting such an improvement. We also believe that the share of combined heat and power generation in the energy market could be increased to 18% by 2010 and 25% by 2015, because that would also put electricity supply on a secure basis. Cogeneration, of course, can be achieved with fossil fuels as well as with renewable forms of energy. We are backing renewable energy in particular, and there are encouraging examples in this domain, such as pellet-fuelled heating, with which heat and power can be cogenerated very efficiently. It is also important that the European Commission steps up its coordination effort in this area. Coordinating European initiatives is a highly demanding task, if we think of programmes such as SAVE, Altener or the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Energy. Many programmes are available, but the important thing is to ensure that they are carefully targeted. My last point concerns public tendering and centralised procurement. Special consideration should be given in these contexts to small and medium-sized companies; to that end, the cost of new appliances and systems should be calculated on the basis of their entire life expectancy, including the price of total energy consumption over that period in addition to the purchase price.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1001117.txt','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'100112.txt','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1001131.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1001233.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'100265.txt','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.','Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission. Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission\'s visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole. Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission\'s White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention\'s methodology and on fundamental citizens\' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today\'s marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s headlines read “Death.com”! The new dotcom industry is in a real state of crisis and yet the markets have taken to it most enthusiastically. Data volumes are currently doubling every three months, meaning that, in theory at least, there are two conflicting currents. On the one hand the crash in share prices and a spate of bankruptcies in the industry and, on the other hand, a huge demand for and a huge fascination with this industry, which is extremely widely used. Domain names have also proved to be valuable commodities. The first stock exchanges are being set up on which you can trade, auction and sell your own domain name, which is why the question of intellectual property arises here: what is being done about licensing? Will it be possible in future to grant compulsory licences if, for example, a compulsory link can simply be set up on one well-known web page to another web page? How will we settle disputes if it comes – and it will come – to intercontinental disputes? Will the WIPO alone have jurisdiction here or is this already a matter for the WTO? I think that questions of abuse and questions of criminality need to be looked at primarily in an international context. We need consumer confidence in electronic commerce and that can only be achieved with fair and proper registration. In the final analysis, we can also signal acceptance of EU laws by creating an EU domain and this, in turn, will have enormous repercussions on e-commerce.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004158.txt','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.','Mr President, Mr Linkohr\'s comments are not quite correct. I will gladly let you see the text approved by the Austrian Parliament. It does not contain any kind of ultimatum or any hint of blackmail, and I, too, have made it quite clear now that we cannot and certainly do not want to compel anyone to do anything. We request, we appeal to the Czech Government to act in accordance with current European law and quite simply to observe the Espoo Convention, even if they have not ratified it yet.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004197.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines; it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here; I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business; there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(6.947536148985981,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,2,'1004265.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe\'s civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part . To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004297.txt','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'10043.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, power requires control. The European institutions have power and, for the sake of our citizens, we must set limits on this power. It is high time that we plugged the gaps in the protection of European fundamental rights. The debate as to whether the Union should not simply accede to the European Convention on Human Rights just as the Member States do has gone on for years. I, for one, am delighted that, for a variety of reasons, the Union has not acceded to the Convention on Human Rights As it stands, the Charter which we shall be voting for today – I hope by a large majority –, will clearly afford us better protection of our fundamental rights which is more in keeping with the times than acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights would have done. Just under one-third of the Charter contains the same guarantees as the Convention on Human Rights. The rest, for the most part, ups the ante when it comes to citizens\' political rights, economic and social rights and, last but not least, the issues of tomorrow – environmental, health and consumer protection. The Charter must become European law if it really is to do its job. The step which we are taking today is just one step on the long road ahead. The solemn proclamation must pave the way for binding European constitutional law. Does today\'s step mark the start of a movement which will end in a European superstate? No, it does not. The demand for fundamental Union rights, combined with the request that the treaties be constitutionalised, does not mean that a United States of Europe lies at the end of the road. But we do need a constitutional text for Europe as quickly as possible, a text for our citizens containing clear, comprehensible statements on Europe, telling them what rights they have, where the Union has taken over responsibility, what powers the Member States should exercise, including in the future, and how Europe intends to do its job, with every guarantee that the rule of law will protect their human rights. We must keep working on this. We must move in this direction.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'100435.txt','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.','Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries\' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning\'s debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates\' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004412.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004424.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004437.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause)  The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing; on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another; it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause)  to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer; our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004510.txt','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Court of Justice is rightly seen as the guardian of Community law, but also, and especially, as safeguarding and furthering the four traditional fundamental freedoms – of goods, persons, services and capital – all of which are relevant to the matter under discussion. It was not all that long ago that the European Court of Justice had to weigh in the balance the fundamental freedoms on the one hand and, on the other, the protests by people for whom the effects of the transit routes through Austria have all become too much. They sat down in the road and said, ‘it can not go on like this’. Like many of those who have already spoken here today, the defenders of European freedoms talked up the supreme importance of their position. The Court of Justice saw these things differently, adducing the remarkable argument that the freedoms, though important, are not everything. Of equal value to them, it said, were the basic rights of citizens, in this specific case the freedom to express opinions and to demonstrate, and – as can be read in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we hope is shortly to be given added weight as Part II of the European Constitution – so was the requirement that the environment be protected in general and in what are termed vulnerable regions in particular. This obligation is to be protected, being of equal importance to European freedoms and on a level with them. It is unfortunate that Parliament, at first reading stage, did not see it as really important that the right to free transport should be balanced against the rights of people and of the environment on transit routes. Nearly all the Members from the fourteen Member States that are not affected insisted on their rights, aiming to do away with the transit arrangement, and the law of the jungle prevailed. I hope, indeed I ask, that at least some of you will, when you vote tomorrow, also listen to the other side and consider their rights too. To these Members, we Austrians have made an offer in the form of Amendments Nos 18 and 19, to which reference has already been made, in the hope that they will vote for them. (Applause)'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004550.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur once again for presenting his very good report in response to the Commission’s proposals, as well as the amendments put forward by the committee. Thank you very much. We all know that the competition rules go back to 1957, that Regulation 17 dates back to 1962, and that virtually all the framework conditions have changed since then. On the one hand, we are confronted with globalisation; on the other hand, the European Union, originally a Community of six, will expand to a Community of 25 in future, and I personally think it is a good thing that the centralised system which reserved the right of application of Articles 81 and 82 exclusively to the Commission is now being restructured as a decentralised system. However, this must not lead to the renationalisation of competition policy. In reality, this is prevented by the fact that European law takes precedence over national law, and I anticipate that the current proposal will create fair competition and equal competition conditions. It will also ensure legal certainty for all enterprises and the uniform application of competition policy, and will simplify procedures in line with the one-stop-shop principle. It will coordinate the activities of the national – in my view, independent – competition authorities and enable the national authorities and courts to cooperate closely with the Commission. It will establish a clear division of responsibilities between the national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and cartel law, and ensure that the Commission continues to be the guardian of the treaties and thus has more time to devote to real problems, i.e. controlling mergers and cartels. Many congratulations on having the courage to take these initiatives. I wish we could see more of this in other areas too.'),(3.4737680744929906,3.4737680744929906,1000,'European_Union_law',31,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1001139.txt','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'100275.txt','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.','Madam Commissioner, on a certain occasion in September, you said that we should declare war on Hollywood in order to strengthen the European film industry. The only problem there is that our best warriors emigrate to Hollywood. Commissioner, malicious gossip has it that you could be open to challenge, in purely legal terms, for awarding the European Film Prize in Cannes on behalf of MEDIA Plus, since the prize may have been funded from the MEDIA II budget. Be that as it may, we shall not criticise you. On the contrary, we are grateful for the tremendous vigour with which you have been tackling the entire cultural agenda. I have read in the press that we in the European Parliament could possibly upset the timetable because we are pressing for parliamentary codecision. I do not think this is the case. We have the political will to see that this programme begins on time. As directly elected representatives of the people, we also have a legal and moral right to be part of the decision-making process in the field of cultural policy. Madam Commissioner, we make an earnest appeal for a constructive dialogue with you and with the Council on this specific issue.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004128.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004190.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start at the end. Parliament has resolved to demand the creation of a legal framework under the codecision procedure and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the implementation of the provisions on the internal market and competition and in relation to the compatibility of competition and the internal market with services of general interest. We have called upon the Commission to present, by April at the latest – and we now hear that it will take all the time it has been given – a follow-up document, in which it will show what it has learned from the consultations on the Green Paper and make it clear where it stands on the possibility of a legal framework and what it proposes to do next. That is our position where codecision, subsidiarity and adequate provision for services of general interest are concerned, and we will not accept anything to the contrary. Secondly, we are so overwhelmingly in favour of the codecision procedure not only because it increases our influence, but also because services of general interest are a quite crucial issue for the public in terms of European politics, and because we want to do everything we can to prevent the public thinking of liberalisation, competition and the internal market as being in conflict with services of general interest and security of provision, and, instead, to try to get the two to work together. We affirm that social cohesion is not excluded by competition, liberalisation and the internal market, but is, on the contrary, dependent on them and needs complementary measures. That is why the way we handle services of general interest is closely tied in with public confidence in our policies on competition and the internal market and in Europe’s competences – and that is why we, the public’s representatives in the citizens’ parliament, who have to deal with this permanent antithesis on a daily basis, want to be involved in deciding and determining what is to be done. My next point is that it is important that the principle of subsidiarity be maintained in view of the differences involved – differences in definition from one Member State to another, differences in geographical situations, differences in the problems of demographics and those affecting social and health policy. That is another reason why we are so strongly in favour of the European constitution, because the draft contained a formulation securing the principle of subsidiarity, one to which we can give our support. There is something else I would like to touch on. According to the constitution, the European Union’s goal is the social market economy and social cohesion. Treating services of general interest as not being the antithesis of competition and the internal market is what defines and gives life to the governing principle of the social market economy and creates social cohesion on that basis. I stress the need both for potential service providers to be treated impartially and for there to be security of provision, the latter of which must be ensured even if aid payments are needed to do so. The fact is that we need services of general interest only where the market is unable to guarantee these services on a universal basis, at affordable prices and to a high standard of quality. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004206.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, you started, Commissioner Solbes, by mentioning that you are working on getting the Treaty changed. I should like to ask you straight up: exactly what changes are you working on? How will the European Parliament and codecision and joint competence fit in with these changes? And for my second question. We all talk about growth and employment. We have the stability and growth pact. We have the internal market. We have the Lisbon process. What potential for coordination in these three agreements has still not been exhausted and how does the Treaty prevent these orders from being fulfilled?','Mr President, Commissioners, you started, Commissioner Solbes, by mentioning that you are working on getting the Treaty changed. I should like to ask you straight up: exactly what changes are you working on? How will the European Parliament and codecision and joint competence fit in with these changes? And for my second question. We all talk about growth and employment. We have the stability and growth pact. We have the internal market. We have the Lisbon process. What potential for coordination in these three agreements has still not been exhausted and how does the Treaty prevent these orders from being fulfilled?'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004234.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle; I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004262.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result. The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time. We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty. A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004325.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I rise to speak on this point is that the experience of the last few weeks in connection with the handling of the Stability and Growth Pact, that is to say of European law, have made clear how important it is that the Intergovernmental Conference should still include price stability in the list of the EU’s objectives in the European constitution. Another reason why I have asked for the floor is that the experience of recent days and weeks has shown how important it is that the Protocol of the Stability and Growth Pact should, like other protocols, be appended to the constitution as an annex. And I have asked to speak also because I believe that the experience of the last few weeks also clearly shows us that the debate on the constitution has been, in part, nationalised, and that we must take care that the nationalisation of a European project does not jeopardise this great project through national referendum. If there is to be a referendum, then let there be one consultation of the European people, with one Europe-wide result and dual majority of votes and countries. We have talked about how the Constitution must make Europe more transparent and more democratic and bring it closer to the people, which is what it is meant to do. So I appeal to the President of the Council to see to it that the Commission is strengthened, that this House’s rights of codecision are extended, that Parliament retains sovereignty over the Budget, and nothing is done to aid and abet the attempt by the finance ministers, in their letter to the President of the Council, to force the Commission and Parliament to keep silent about their rights. The Europe we need is Community-oriented rather than intergovernmental. The Constitution is the outward expression of strengthened Community institutions, and I ask you to counteract all the attempts made by groupings within the Council to hand back Europe to the nation states. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004354.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.','Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, somehow or other, today’s agenda has come full circle. We have had a great deal to say today about Europe as a community of values, about tolerance, human dignity, human rights, a positive approach to the enlargement process, transparency and respect for each other. Youth, education and cultural policies are important tools for creating these values, for giving the citizens confidence in the European Union and making it credible in their eyes. The funding approved by the Council for the cultural programme does not do justice to the importance of cultural and educational policy and of this programme to the European Union’s goals. Cultural activity creates identity. Cultural activity is an expression of individuality, of an individual’s own personality; it builds relationships and communicates. We want a colourful Europe. We want a Europe based on the principle of diversity within unity. We want people to understand and learn to appreciate differences. That is why we spoke in favour of breaking down the budget, the allocation of funds that is, into the different types of measure. That is why we opposed concentrating heavily on large networks and network structures, because we want to promote the small and medium-sized entities and activities performed by individuals; because we want to see thousands of flowers bloom. I would like to second what the previous speaker had to say. There is a contradiction in terms – unanimity principle, codecision procedure, and Conciliation Committee – and it is one we must resolve if we want to strengthen, and not further weaken the principles of cultural policy that are to create a European consciousness.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004368.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004493.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my Group chairman has tipped me the wink and I am able to say on behalf of our group, the PPE-DE, that we fully support and welcome the Commission’s explanations in reply to the oral question, as regards both what was said and the timetable and legal evaluation. Secondly: I am also delighted that we are again stepping up the political debate on the party statute, the pressure of time in the run up to the final stage of the intergovernmental conference notwithstanding. This is not just a question of money. This is also a question of political self-awareness, a question of political identity, a question of the role of national and European parties in the unification process. We want a stronger European Parliament and that means reducing unanimity and increasing the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. But a stronger European Parliament depends on strong groups in Parliament which have the authority to act. We want a strong Commission which drives the European integration process forward. One of the ways in which this is expressed is by lobbying for the President’s function to be strengthened and through parliament’s proposals to the intergovernmental conference. We want a statute for European political parties because our democracy is a civil and party-political parliamentary democracy. But we must not underestimate the psychological importance of this debate. At present people and national parties are elected. We want, as we have stated in the proposal to the intergovernmental conference, members on European lists to be elected because we want to raise the European political profile of members further still. The proposal was touched on at the intergovernmental conference. I readily admit that we want European lists and European members of parliament. The proposals have been made; it all depends on the European party statute. The report by the Court of Auditors containing demands on the groups was also touched on. We shall comply with these demands. My group started taking steps in this direction even before the Court of Auditors’ report in order to clarify this transparency and this division. But it cannot work against the European parties because that would represent a reduction in our European self-awareness. That is also why the party statute is one of the conditions which needs to be put in place so that we can in fact quickly do what is demanded of us and what we demand of ourselves. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'100452.txt','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency\'s proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004567.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004605.txt','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.','Mr President, I would like to start with very warm thanks to Mr Moreira Da Silva, who was a superb rapporteur, and he has produced a fine report. ET,  Emission tradit is a strange unknown being from a strange unknown star. We do not yet know whether to fear it or love it. I have, though, attempted to give this being a rather more human face and have brought in a series of amendments, some of which have also been adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Amendment No 2: if the authorities already have to update this by making various changes to the installations, then please let this happen with the operators\' agreement. The Commission states in its draft that it will stipulate a harmonised method of allocation for the period beginning on 1 January 2008. I would rather that they did not. I believe that Parliament has the right to be involved in this by way of the codecision procedure. My concern in Amendment No 30 is that the allocation of allowances to new installations should, in principle, be harmonised across the EU. My Amendment No 37 is particularly important. This has to do with need for the Member States to ensure that the operators of installations can, within the relevant periods, bring forward allowances or put them aside for a subsequent year. This strikes me as very, very important, and makes things a bit more workable. It is my belief that none of us needs to fear this draft. After all, we are dealing only with the period from 2005 to the end of 2010, which the Commission has already designated as a sort of test run. Fear not, my good brave Mr Langen; we can keep on changing all this. I am sure that it will be only after today\'s vote that we will really get started on a major discussion process.'),(4.074541934912921,4.074541934912921,1000,'European_Union_legislative_procedure',17,1,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'European_Year_of_People_with_Disabilities',1,1,'1004424.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 and 2001, in the Mont Blanc tunnel, in the Tauern tunnel and in the Gotthard tunnel, we had three major fire disasters. Those events made it abundantly clear to us at the time that, on the main stretches of the trans-European network and in particular in its tunnels, we had something of a safety deficit. On that occasion, Parliament wasted no time in asking the Commission to carry out the appropriate investigations of this and then to submit a text that would, by becoming European law, enable us to ensure that we could achieve greater safety for the users of the roads of Europe – especially in tunnels. The Commission has taken up the subject in a way which deserves our gratitude, and in the last two and a half years it has in particular been able, in a consistently difficult process of dialogue with Parliament on the one hand and the Council on the other, to make its contribution to ensuring that in record time we have produced a very good joint text, which we can now agree at second reading and thus even before the end of the present parliamentary term. We can then expect, as soon as possible, on the roads of Europe and in the tunnels of Europe, a higher, better degree of safety than prevailed in the past. Of the many points that it has been possible to include in this directive or statutory text, I would like to mention one subject in particular, which above all Parliament, but not Parliament alone, regarded as of particular interest, namely the fact that we are also considering, quite specifically, the interests of the disabled. Last year, we had the European Year of People with Disabilities. At the time, we rightly stressed that it was not sufficient to have a year in which we frequently used the word ‘disabled’ and then did nothing about it. We also had quite specifically to seek to take the subject of tunnel safety seriously in this context. I was also particularly delighted, as rapporteur for this proposal, by the fact that we have also been able to include in the meetings and negotiations for this admittedly far from simple text two countries that are not original Member States of the European Union – I mean unfortunately not original Member States of the European Union – but who are of course also of very particular importance for questions of safety on the European road network. One is Switzerland, and the other is Norway. Both these countries, especially at the level of the Council, but also in meetings with Parliament’s rapporteur, have been involved to a large extent in the discussions, and we can expect that as a result in these countries also a uniform tunnel safety standard at the general European level can be expected. Similarly – and this is the last point that I would like to stress – we can assume that, in the future Member States of the European Union, which will be full members of the EU as from 1 May 2004, with this statutory text, which is for some of the new members part of the acquis that they have yet to take on board, we have created a European basis for ensuring that these parts of the overall European road network are also rapidly offered the degree of safety which must be guaranteed by road builders, road maintainers and road monitors, as we rightly believe. In conclusion, I would like to thank warmly all those who have actively collaborated in the creation of this piece of legislation, especially the Commissioner, who has been decisively committed to the subject, but above all also the Commission as a whole with its staff and both the Council and its staff and also Parliament and our groups here in this House and their staff. They all worked on this text and contributed to the result, which is that, in all probability in a few minutes’ time, we will be able to give almost unanimous assent to this text, and I believe – and we will also rightly be saying this in the next few weeks to the population of Europe – that the work has been worthwhile in the interests of safety for the users of Europe’s roads.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Europe_1',1,1,'100456.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid; it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Europe_of_Democracies_and_Diversities',1,1,'1001146.txt','On behalf of the Members belonging to the Austrian Freedom Party, I wish to explain our vote on the van Hulten report. The reason why we voted in favour of Amendment No 40 is that we advocate a new Bureau decision leaving no loopholes permitting additional mileage allowances and payments for extra time. We therefore advocate that the Bureau decision of 8 May 2003 should be revised to allow for the reimbursement of costs actually incurred. We voted against Amendment No 1, tabled by the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, believing as we do that it could be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the retention of the 28 May 2003 decision on costs, with its hidden lump-sum allowances. In the final vote, though, we nevertheless voted against the report, as it fails to deal with such issues as the demand for a single venue for the European Parliament or the abolition of allowances for Fridays in Strasbourg. Having considered all the arguments, I wish to emphasise that the decision to reimburse only those travel expenses that are actually incurred met with our wholehearted support, although, at the same time, I regret the failure to take on board many of the amendments.','On behalf of the Members belonging to the Austrian Freedom Party, I wish to explain our vote on the van Hulten report. The reason why we voted in favour of Amendment No 40 is that we advocate a new Bureau decision leaving no loopholes permitting additional mileage allowances and payments for extra time. We therefore advocate that the Bureau decision of 8 May 2003 should be revised to allow for the reimbursement of costs actually incurred. We voted against Amendment No 1, tabled by the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, believing as we do that it could be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the retention of the 28 May 2003 decision on costs, with its hidden lump-sum allowances. In the final vote, though, we nevertheless voted against the report, as it fails to deal with such issues as the demand for a single venue for the European Parliament or the abolition of allowances for Fridays in Strasbourg. Having considered all the arguments, I wish to emphasise that the decision to reimburse only those travel expenses that are actually incurred met with our wholehearted support, although, at the same time, I regret the failure to take on board many of the amendments.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004130.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, international organised crime accounts for 10% of world trade, and a large proportion of it is in the European Union. If the statistics are correct, developments in the crime sector are extremely alarming because in the European Union 30% of crime is already classified as international organised crime. In the light of this trend we have to ask ourselves whether the border-free European Union is actually taking advantage of all the opportunities it has to take action against this organised crime. Where police cooperation is concerned we can say that substantial progress has been made. We have Europol, and Europol is working extremely successfully to fight crime. In the field of judicial cooperation, however, we must unfortunately note that here cooperation is still in its infancy. With Eurojust we now have a new instrument which will become operational in 2002 and will represent decisive progress in cooperation between the judicial authorities. In principle, then, Eurojust works like Europol. It coordinates the criminal prosecution authorities in the fight against organised crime. What we must hope is that cooperation with existing units, with the judicial network and with Europol, works and that duplicate investigations are avoided. I would congratulate the rapporteur. There is only one point on which I disagree with her. She has proposed that Luxembourg should be the seat. As an Austrian, who also knows that the enlargement of the European Union is at hand – and welcomes it – and that Vienna is moving closer to the heart of the European Union, I would make a counter-proposal and propose not Luxembourg but Vienna as the seat of this authority.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'100416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.','Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004160.txt','Mr President, I have two questions. The first is about securing our external borders. I very much welcome the programme and proposals with regard to enlargement, and particularly the fact that you want to have uniform responsibilities. The question is this: when do you think the new Schengen manual will be available? We will have common training programmes. When do you think this common training system will be operational? What I would also like to request is that we should consider the compatibility of the technology being used and that we should also get Europol to carry out the proposed risk assessment as soon as possible. When do you think the system will be operating? My second question is about migration. Our objective – and on this we agree – must be to create viable legal immigration mechanisms and prevent illegal immigration. However, the problem that arises here relates in particular to the area of asylum, where, although the Commission has made proposals, final decisions remain to be made in all areas. But we need decisions to be made quickly so that genuine refugees – who make up about 10% of applicants – can be helped swiftly and so that repatriation can be arranged for the remaining 90% that have to be rejected. Commissioner Vitorino, how do you intend to ensure that a system of this kind can finally be made operational and that we can secure Council approval?','Mr President, I have two questions. The first is about securing our external borders. I very much welcome the programme and proposals with regard to enlargement, and particularly the fact that you want to have uniform responsibilities. The question is this: when do you think the new Schengen manual will be available? We will have common training programmes. When do you think this common training system will be operational? What I would also like to request is that we should consider the compatibility of the technology being used and that we should also get Europol to carry out the proposed risk assessment as soon as possible. When do you think the system will be operating? My second question is about migration. Our objective – and on this we agree – must be to create viable legal immigration mechanisms and prevent illegal immigration. However, the problem that arises here relates in particular to the area of asylum, where, although the Commission has made proposals, final decisions remain to be made in all areas. But we need decisions to be made quickly so that genuine refugees – who make up about 10% of applicants – can be helped swiftly and so that repatriation can be arranged for the remaining 90% that have to be rejected. Commissioner Vitorino, how do you intend to ensure that a system of this kind can finally be made operational and that we can secure Council approval?'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004192.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!','Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, I hope that the terrorist atrocity on 11 September had the same effect on the Council, that is to say the Interior and Justice Ministers, as it did on the Heads of State and Government, namely that of shaking them awake and bringing it home to them that national resentments and animosities have no place in the fight against terrorism. I see these resolutions overall in a positive light. We must, though, be able to expect a rapid start to be made on putting them into effect. I also expect the Union at last to embrace the possibilities already open to it; that the Member States will at last comply with their obligations and supply the necessary information to Europol in The Hague; and that the counter-terrorist Conventions will at last be brought into force. I also look forward to Europol being supplied with the personnel and technology it needs to its at last being put in a position to carry out an investigation into the state of terrorist networks in Europe and to a joint investigation team soon being set up. What I look for from the Summit is that new projects will be called into being, such as intensive cooperation between Europol and the United States security services and the networking of police databases, ranging from Europol to Schengen via Olaf, so that these might be used against terrorism; that Eurojust should become the reality to which Mr Poettering has just referred, working closely with Europol; and that Europol should be developed in the direction of the first pillar, with authority to conduct investigations; and that the intergovernmental level should be abandoned in favour of the European in closely circumscribed areas of organised crime. In other words, to take this cooperation in security policy as an example, Europe has a great opportunity to bring the added value of the European Union home to its citizens. Let us make use of this opportunity without delay!'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004271.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino\'s two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004281.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.','Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004292.txt','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.','Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you rightly pointed out that this summit in Tampere is an Extraordinary Summit on the subject of making preparations for an area of freedom, security and justice. In conclusion you also pointed out that prior to this – tomorrow and the day after – an Extraordinary Council Summit would take place, a meeting of Ministers for Justice and Ministers for Home Affairs in Turku. That is why it is so important for us to discuss this subject today here in Parliament, too. Against the background of this preparation meeting tomorrow and the day after in Turku and against the background of having to deal in Europe, unfortunately, with a rise in organised crime, drugs-related crime, the criminal trade in human beings and the like, it was incomprehensible to me that we should have to discuss in this Chamber whether we could even have this debate here in the European Parliament. I am pleased, however, that we in the European People’s Party, together with the friends of security, have successfully been able to implement the initiative in this Chamber against the Social Democrat Group who did not want this discussion to take place here. It is a matter of the possibility and the necessity of giving a clear sign here that we take the sphere of security and justice seriously, that the point is to prepare material for the Tampere Summit in the interests of the security and freedom of the citizens of Europe. This is essential. The Council keeps appearing here and putting forward great proposals. I see that as very positive. What is lacking is the translation of these into concrete action. What became, for example, of the asylum paper which was discussed about a year ago? What became of the strategic paper on asylum and migration submitted by the Austrian Presidency? We are still waiting for the implementation of EURODAC. We are waiting for the harmonisation of data which would make it possible to check which anti-drugs campaigns are successful and which are not. Announcements must be followed by action. This is what we are waiting for, concrete action in three areas. Firstly, we are waiting for comprehensive strategies on the management of migration which, on the one hand, do not make excessive demands on the capacity of Member States and their citizens to integrate but, on the other hand, also help to avoid social conflict. We are waiting for lasting instruments for joint solutions to deal with the influx of refugees, unified standards in the field of asylum procedures. For us, burden sharing in the reception of refugees is indispensable, as indispensable as the preparation of on-site aid. We need permanent solutions here. What we also need – I am pleased to see that you mentioned them – are instruments to fight against illegal immigration, the criminal trade in human beings and the abuse of asylum. We are therefore waiting for EURODAC to be quickly set up and the Schengen security system to become effective at all frontiers in Europe. We are also awaiting effective measures in the fight against organised crime. EUROPOL must be fully developed; it must be given operative authority. Cross-border collaboration between police forces must be extended to provide co-operation in training and co-operation with applicant countries. Naturally, we expect judicial co-operation to guarantee legal protection for citizens while, on the other hand, enabling speedy and effective criminal prosecution across borders, and that means accelerated procedures, the direct exchange of documents, harmonisation of criminal law systems and also assistance for the victims of crime. The challenge has been issued to the Council. We expect deeds, not fine words and summit photos.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004297.txt','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.','Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed.  However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect.  I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction?  Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004324.txt','Madam President, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Council – not for the first time, I might add – has contravened the Rules of Procedure. The point being that we MEPs have the opportunity, once a month, to submit a written question, for priority consideration which, according to the Rules of Procedure, must be responded to within three weeks. Now what we are finding is that increasingly often, the Council is failing to keep to this time scale. Here is the latest example: I submitted a question in October, to which I have not received an answer to this day, namely when is the Council going to get round to implementing the salary increase promised to the Europol staff? This is not an isolated case, rather such instances are mounting up. I would urge you to press the Council to observe the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Council – not for the first time, I might add – has contravened the Rules of Procedure. The point being that we MEPs have the opportunity, once a month, to submit a written question, for priority consideration which, according to the Rules of Procedure, must be responded to within three weeks. Now what we are finding is that increasingly often, the Council is failing to keep to this time scale. Here is the latest example: I submitted a question in October, to which I have not received an answer to this day, namely when is the Council going to get round to implementing the salary increase promised to the Europol staff? This is not an isolated case, rather such instances are mounting up. I would urge you to press the Council to observe the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004441.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice.  We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law.  Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. .   (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004573.txt','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, here we are today discussing five initiatives from the Member States, and the Council is again conspicuous by its absence. These initiatives may well be a good thing in themselves, but they are increasingly creating problems for us. The problems arise because they are founded on a legal basis which often turns out to be absolutely unusable and we are then consulted, even if we do not absolutely have to be, as with the salary rise for the employees of Europol. Let me say to the Council: Give them a decent income, so that Europol\'s staff are paid according to their performance, and so that they are motivated rather than frustrated. You address problems, but end up proposing solutions that go against further integration. Here again, I am referring to the Europol Convention. We need quicker decisions, decisions reached by the Council on a majority basis. These initiatives create difficulties for us when more and more new institutions are created, meaning more bureaucracy and more expense, but nobody can explain to us what added value these new networks, institutions and facilities bring to the European Union or to security. Rather, these initiatives give the impression that activities are being announced without any desire to strive towards real solutions. This plethora of initiatives increasingly clogs up our work in committee, with the result that tomorrow will probably see four of these five initiatives having to be rejected and one of them adopted only if amendments to it by Lord Stockton and others among us can actually be accepted. All in all, that does not make for a good day for this form of parliamentarianism or for initiatives of this kind. We have to consider whether future initiatives like these will require us, perhaps via the Convention, to take a new path in order to achieve sensible solutions in the interests of security and also of Parliament. (Applause)'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004586.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it; we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.'),(4.199705077869927,4.199705077869927,1000,'Europol',15,1,'1004593.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council\'s plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Euroscepticism',1,1,'1004302.txt','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.','Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future. The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes. However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Eurostar',1,1,'1004201.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5% in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5%; in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Eurostat',4,1,'1004513.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers the Chemicals Directive for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Eurostat',4,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Eurostat',4,1,'1004602.txt','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.','Mr President, we must, of course, adopt a tough and determined line on violence and crime. We are all aware that that there are constantly muggings in Brussels, within sight of this Parliament, and that out there, crime is the order of the day. There are really no comparative statistics for Europe. If you ask EUROSTAT, they give extremely varied results. I think that we need standards for evaluating crime and that we need comparable statistics. During the last legislature I asked the Council to make an effort to look after the safety of Parliament’s employees and of the people of Brussels. I would also like to take this opportunity to request the Council to create a safety initiative which is for Brussels and against crime in the city.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Eurostat',4,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(8.6856118430392,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,2,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004316.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004343.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece\'s central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank\'s Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank\'s policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank\'s decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank\'s independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004553.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the Left, for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'100456.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, although I very much welcome today\'s debate, I would like to put it on record that I see the summons to you, Mr President of the Commission, to come to Parliament today, as amounting to a blue letter in response to your latest utterances on the Stability and Growth Pact. A glance at history shows us that every currency union lacking the backup of political union failed. The EU is not yet a political union, and so the Stability and Growth Pact is what might be termed a stopgap, an imaginary European Finance Minister. Demolish it, and you imperil monetary union. The Stability and Growth Pact is not stupid, but casting doubt upon it is irresponsible and indeed negligent. The Stability and Growth Pact is an effective tool to counteract budgetary folly, a workable substitute for the common EU budgetary policy that, for the foreseeable future, does not exist. The Stability and Growth Pact is neither complicated nor rigid; it is flexible and simple enough, with its rule of no new debts in good times and up to 3% of GDP room to manoeuvre in bad ones. Most of our States abide by the Stability and Growth Pact. Why, I wonder, are the majority in Europe taken to be the stupid ones, just because a few have problems and either have not done their homework or do not want to do it? As they say, people who do not take themselves seriously are not taken seriously by others. What are people, the public and the candidate countries to be guided by and be able to hold fast to, if the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, and Member States, declare constitutional principles to be optional and sacrifice them to convenience and to the opportunism entailed in making policy on a day-to-day basis. Running up debts may be opportune in the short term, but, in the long term, the debt trap jeopardises growth and employment, stability and social cohesion. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use this minute and this debate to express gratitude and congratulations to the Board of the ECB and its President, Wim Duisenberg for their steady hand and for being an anchor of stability. I would, though also like to tell the President of the European Central Bank that, when rain comes pouring in through the roof of a house, or water breaks into a ship, the caretaker or the captain must not go. I beg Mr Duisenberg to call off the early retirement he has already announced, and to stay put. I want to spare us a debate at the present time as to whether a country that openly defies the Stability and Growth Pact has any sort of moral right to propose a candidate as his successor. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, you said on Radio Europe 1, and repeated today, that you were calling for a central institution to coordinate the eurozone countries\' economic policies. I do not believe that we need a new institution. We have one – the Commission! Your task is to strengthen it rather than weaken it. Your task is to implement the Treaty rather than to undermine it, and use enhanced coordination to make the objectives realities. Ladies and gentlemen, we need more trust and less troublemaking. My group is therefore showing the yellow card to all those who cast doubt upon the Stability and Growth Pact. If anyone misunderstands that, we will have to show them the red one! (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Eurozone',13,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Euro_banknotes',6,1,'1004179.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my impatience is growing, not only as a Member of this House, but also as rapporteur for the information campaign and as a Member of the Interinstitutional Committee. Sometimes my impatience gives way to disappointment. Like the People\'s Europe initiative, the major European projects, such as the introduction of euro notes and coins, the reunification of Europe, the debate on fundamental rights and a European constitution, the debate on competences (who is responsible for what), the post-Nice ratification procedure and the post-Nice process – I use the expression major political European projects advisedly – need an information and communication campaign. Despite the call for subsidiarity and decentralisation, the Commission and the European Parliament need to exercise joint professional management of the content. The current unsatisfactory state of affairs is the cause of the questions, criticism and disappointment about the dilettantism of the information policy, the announcement strategy and the delaying tactics. I ask myself the following questions: what has happened since 14 April 2000? Where is the master plan which we were promised at that time? Where is the specific timetable and programme of measures? Where is the clear division of responsibilities in the Commission? On 14 April, Commissioner Reding spoke here. A few days ago, Commissioner Barnier deferred answering the question about whether he would be taking over responsibility for this. Today you have stood in for us. Where is the proof that you are serious about a joint Commission and European Parliament approach? There is no clear strategy. We do not need a re-nationalisation of information policy. The Commission is not simply a channel for EU funds… (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Euro_banknotes',6,1,'1004274.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the year that is coming to its end has been a remarkable one for Europe. The introduction of euro notes and coins has made the internal market a domestic one. The Copenhagen resolutions have set in motion the process of ratification for enlargement as a precondition for the reunification of Europe, and have enabled the legacy of Yalta and of the post-war era to be overcome. This move also has knock-on effects on all the Member States and candidate countries, including my own country, which possessed the longest external – and dead – border. From Europe\'s margin, we have moved back, to be – as the Austrian national anthem puts it – like a heart at its centre. Our task is to draw closer together, to build up Europe\'s stability and its capacity to act, to listen, to be desirous of mutual understanding, to tear down walls and cut through barbed-wire fences – wherever they were or will be set up. Neither Copenhagen nor participation in the 2004 elections to Parliament bring the accession process to a conclusion. Information, communication and reform continue to be needed. The European projects call for the public to be more deeply involved, and not only prior to the ratification of treaties. Far from being already at an end, the process of enlargement is moving forward, and I am thinking not only of Bulgaria and Romania, but also of Croatia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As my final point, let me say that transit policy is evidence of the fact that the Danish Presidency, to which I am very grateful, is at work right through to its last day. Let me tell you, as an Austrian, that we give the utmost support to the proposal to be found in COREPER, because it is right and good. It is my expectation that a resolution will be passed at 3 p.m. this afternoon, or, failing that, at the extraordinary council of Transport Ministers on 31 December. Let us put an end to transitional arrangements; let us establish European rules and introduce the infrastructure costs directive in 2003 at the latest! (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Euro_banknotes',6,1,'1004296.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you yourselves are familiar with the hundred franc note in Belgium, which is worth about 2 euro. In Greece, there is the thousand drachma note, which is only worth 0.5 cents. In other words, we are quite used to having a largely paper-based currency, so my question is this: do you think it is likely that we will ultimately have one or two euro notes as well, given that the five euro note is currently the smallest denomination? In the southern countries in particular, notes are far more popular than coins.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Euro_banknotes',6,1,'1004397.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mention has already been made of the fact that the rapporteur, Karl von Wogau, is unable to be here. He himself explained why during his intervention on the Lamfalussy report. Because the order of business was changed at such short notice, he was unable to change his appointments so that he could be here in person. I should like to point out that the Lamfalussy report and this economic report were originally scheduled for the beginning of the day and that the rapporteur arranged this evening’s discussion with voters in his constituency some time ago. May I apologise on his behalf once again. I shall endeavour to do my best under the circumstances. There are a number of points which I wish to address. First, this is the last year before euro notes and coins are introduced. The internal market of the European Union will then become a real European home market, at least for the members of the euro zone. Twelve Member States will belong to this European home market, in which individuals and companies will all share a common currency. It is therefore right and proper that we should carry out a careful analysis of the European economy in this context. This has now already begun: the forecasts for the current year and the analysis of the status quo are basically optimistic, although they do of course contain a number of risk factors, which I shall come to in a moment. One positive factor which deserves a mention in any critique or proposed improvement is the relatively high rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product. Another positive factor is that the rate of unemployment is falling and we have created 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union over recent years. Yet another positive factor is the improvement in public finances – and the concomitant reduction in the rate of inflation – and long-term price stability. So much for the pros. However, there are two factors which need to be mentioned which could give cause for concern: the first is the present economic climate in the United States. Growth in the United States is slowing down and, given the impact of strong growth in the USA on European trade, this may undermine the EU economy although, on the positive side, we are becoming increasingly immune to economic developments in America and this represents a positive balance and positive justification for our measures. The second factor is the slowdown in the European economy. According to forecasts, the average rate of growth will be 2.8%. I should therefore like to state quite unequivocally that we need to call on the Member States again today to do more to translate the will to engage in reform into practice and to implement sustainable structural measures. We must be critical of the fact that consolidation efforts have come to a standstill in numerous countries. I would just point out that we should be even more critical of consolidation efforts in that the majority of countries have still not met their self-imposed targets in the stability and growth package despite the boom in the economy. The second area which we need to touch on is the fact that we must congratulate the ECB because its “steady hand” policy has proven to be the right policy. The ECB should continue on this stability-oriented course and should also implement its own European stability-oriented policy. We also have a few demands. The rate of inflation must be kept below 2% in the second half of the year. The telecommunications, mail, energy and railway sectors must be liberalised quickly and in a balanced manner. We need to step up efforts in education and training. We need a more flexible labour market and we need structural reforms of the markets for goods, services, capital and labour to be speeded up. Mr President, allow me to close by saying that the main request in Karl von Wogau’s report is contained in the reference to the common principles which derive from our social market economy principles, i.e. freedom and democracy, competition, price stability and sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property and the responsibility not only of the employer towards the employee but of both towards the future, and hence for ensuring that the social market economy evolves into an eco-social market economy.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Euro_banknotes',6,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Euro_banknotes',6,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Euro_coins',2,1,'1004316.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Euro_coins',2,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Euro_convergence_criteria',2,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Euro_convergence_criteria',2,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Euthanasia',1,1,'1004515.txt','Madam President, I am amazed that an honourable Member should describe euthanasia as a matter for national criminal jurisdiction covered by subsidiarity. We are, of course, all very proud and gratified that the death penalty does not exist in a single Member State of the European Union, because the sanctity of human life is something that should unite us all. (Applause)','Madam President, I am amazed that an honourable Member should describe euthanasia as a matter for national criminal jurisdiction covered by subsidiarity. We are, of course, all very proud and gratified that the death penalty does not exist in a single Member State of the European Union, because the sanctity of human life is something that should unite us all. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Evaluation',1,1,'1004331.txt','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.','Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Evaluation_strategy',1,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Event_(philosophy)',4,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Event_(philosophy)',4,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Event_(philosophy)',4,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Event_(philosophy)',4,1,'100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Everything_at_Once',1,1,'1001121.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Everything_but_Arms',1,1,'1004286.txt','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the Everything but  Arms policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)','Mr President, Minister, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a World Food Summit has just ended and a World Summit on Sustainable Development is about to begin. Summits should do more than simply pay lip service to the global fight against poverty and hunger. Yet the horrific statistics – 800 million people suffering from malnutrition, including 300 million children – have not changed at all. Every day, 24 000 people still die of hunger. Global population growth of 2.5 billion people by 2020 means that almost 90% of this increase will take place in the developing countries. The gap between prosperity and poverty is likely to widen, not narrow, as a result. According to the FAO, we are still a long way off achieving our target, which we adopted six years ago, of halving the world\'s hungry by 2015. Combating hunger and poverty is also an integral part of combating terrorism, international crime and illegal migration. This fight requires a holistic approach. The national strategies must focus on rural development and food security. Access to education and skills must be promoted, and water, renewable energies, health and agriculture must be put on the list of priorities for a new partnership to combat hunger in the world. We also need clear objectives and timescales, for otherwise, all these programmes will consist of nothing but empty promises. Of course, the opening of the markets is important as well. However, the \"Everything but  Arms\" policy must not be over-estimated . The USA, too, must adapt its policies here within the WTO framework. The division of labour mooted by some people – whereby the developed world supplies industry and high-tech and the rest of the world, i.e. the less developed countries, is responsible for global food production – has nothing to commend it, in my view. Furthermore, not all the problems are due to poor distribution and re-distribution. The principle of good governance must be adopted and adhered to. The confiscation of the property of white farmers in Zimbabwe is at odds with good governance and will simply propel Southern Africa deeper into hunger. Here, too, the international and European community should clearly signal their indignation. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Everything_in_the_Garden',1,1,'1004201.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5% in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, literature has a few well-known words for what we are discussing in the two Savary reports this evening: “You are late, but at least you are here”, was how Friedrich Schiller put it, words which also apply to our work here in the European Parliament. To discuss the interoperability of the conventional trans-European railway system at the end of the 20th century, just as everyone is getting ready to leave, looks bad, even if, admittedly, interoperability has increased. But still! It has taken more than 100 years for us to pluck up the courage here and give the railways another chance. And yet the facts do not look very promising. The rapporteur has included figures in his report which are all the more significant for being so thin on the ground. Mr Hatzidakis has already told us that the railways had a 21% share of the freight traffic market in 1970 and now have a mere 8.5%; in passenger transport, their share has fallen from 10% in 1970 to 6%. The prospects for high-speed trains are somewhat more encouraging, although here too, not everything in the garden is rosy. It is true that we have at least got something on the rails in western Europe, namely Thalys and Eurostar. But where we want to network Europe in the long term, especially with the future Member States of the Union, things do not look any better. Yet it is vital to win over Eastern Europe, which still makes relatively good use of the railway network, to interoperability with Europe before everything switches to the roads. Incidentally, this must be done through dialogue with the candidate countries, as the Savary report rightly stresses. On one point, there is a need for nostalgia: we want to maintain a small part of the history of Europe and keep historic railway lines in their original state. We shall leave them out of the scope of our directive and the friends of the railway will thank us. Interoperability is rightly not required where regional demands and solutions need to maintain their own legislation within the framework of subsidiarity. In this context, a word to my Austrian Minister of Transport. The southern railway in Austria is an old stretch of line and is of regional importance. But, more importantly, it is the north-south link in the east of the present Union. If we do not invest in it, the east of Austria will run the risk of economic exclusion in the future. That is in nobody’s interest. Austria is excluded from the Union at present more than enough as it is. Let us end all forms of isolation and ensure that we have comprehensive interoperability in the Union. (Applause from various quarters)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Everything_I_Wanted_(Dannii_Minogue_song)',1,1,'1004205.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Evidence',6,1,'1001131.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Evidence',6,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Evidence',6,1,'100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Evidence',6,1,'1004361.txt','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Evidence',6,1,'1004487.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Commissioner Busquin for presenting this opinion. I believe that Commissioner Busquin bears a heavier burden of responsibility than anyone else in Europe at the present time. The main objective in the context of the BSE crisis is to restore consumer confidence, which we can only achieve by means of objective research, by means of evidence from scientists that the foodstuffs we consume are absolutely safe. For that reason, I believe that the whole question of BSE, which covers biotechnological and genetic research, is an important and central issue. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I am even in favour of our making a special allocation without delay for BSE-related research, because I believe that research is the only truly important contribution that we can make to the clarification and solution of this problem. Secondly, small and medium-sized businesses are one of my main areas of concern, and I can only endorse the rapporteur’s view that we should move from 10% to 15% and that funds should be earmarked for companies with fewer than 250 employees. I would also add, however, that provision should perhaps be made for a second threshold for cooperation between large and small companies, research establishments and university institutes. We should insist that the knowledge of large companies and the research findings of scientific foundations and institutions be passed on to the universities and recycled from there into the business world through incubators in order to create new jobs and new businesses. We know that the market is particularly keen on small and medium-sized businesses that are innovative and produce highly marketable products. We should, however, work hard to shift responsibility for the achievement of the aforementioned aims to the national level, because another aspect of the research guidelines is, of course, the idea of dividing up large projects and making them accessible to small businesses too.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Evidence',6,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Evidence-based_medicine',1,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Evidence_(law)',3,1,'1004128.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament\'s Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament\'s main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers\' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers\' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Evidence_(law)',3,1,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Evidence_(law)',3,1,'1004340.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Vitorino is right to say that this represents a first attempt at laying down unified rules on legal immigration by workers and the self-employed. I also take a favourable view of much of the detailed proposals, such as the – obvious – possibility of limitation by the Member States, which would make it possible to stipulate how many of which types of workers should be allowed to enter the European Union, or the deportation of offenders, the proof of financial resources and so on. There are a lot of good things in the proposal, but we in the Group of the European People\'s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have two basic problems with it. In our view, the proposal exceeds, firstly, the legislative competence of the European Union. Whilst the Treaty establishing the European Communities provides specific rules on immigration, the attempt is made here to lay down a general rule of the European Union. We want the principal competence to remain where it is – with the Member States – and we want the European Union to make rules on matters within its remit, specifically on what provision – such as working visas and appropriate controls – is to be made for the entry of third-country nationals into the European Union, and on what rules should then apply to their freedom of movement within it. That is the present situation, and that is the way it should stay. The approach contained in the Commission proposal is equally ill-chosen, as it is based on the assumption that immigration is generally necessary. It is, however, an established fact that the situation varies in every respect from one Member State to another, both as regards the qualifications needed by workers who want to enter the country and the extent to which immigration is needed. From that assumption you deduce that immigration is a right, and an actionable one at that. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth, and we do not want to have it in future either. And when this proposal is developed by the addition of proposals originating in the committee, the report goes so far that we cannot vote in favour of it. Where entry into the EU is concerned, we want framework principles; what we do not want, though, is a general rule that largely pushes back the competence of the Member States!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Evil',1,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Evolution',3,1,'1004240.txt','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.','Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Evolution',3,1,'1004504.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I should like to start by thanking Mr Ebner for his own initiative report. This is a report which I can wholeheartedly support. Given that, as Mr Ebner has just said, mountain regions account for around 30% of the land area in the EU, while in many Member States, such as Austria, they account for as much as 50%, I welcome and support this own initiative report. The importance of mountain ecosystems is a cultural heritage. The maintenance and sustainable management of resources is very important in numerous regions of Europe. The protection of mountain regions, forests, water, the ecological balance and biodiversity needs to be set out in an overall European concept. Many mountains straddle frontiers. Many problems can only be solved more efficiently by means of a cross-border approach and by joining forces. I must stress that farming and forestry have a multifunctional role in mountain regions and that this will be hugely important in an enlarged Union. Both the people who live in the mountains and the tourists who visit every year looking for rest and relaxation value this unique natural and cultural landscape, which is why we must create appropriate incentives for people to live and work there. We must take precautions to prevent the ecological and socio-economic consequences of exodus and depopulation. Sustainable cultivation by mountain farmers not only provides quality food, it also renders a huge service to mankind as a whole. The United Nations have rightly proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. I think it is important for Europe to take a stance now and for the Commission to present a communication as quickly as possible, setting out a really clear definition, taking account of criteria such as altitude, gradient and the vegetation which has been cut down so that we can really address the various problems throughout Europe, and proposing appropriate concepts for strategies and development mechanisms. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Evolution',3,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Evolutionary_biology',2,1,'100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Evolutionary_biology',2,1,'100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ewa_Klamt',1,1,'1004479.txt','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Excise',2,1,'1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.'),(12.429216196844383,6.214608098422191,1000,'Excise',2,2,'1004551.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Executive_(government)',3,1,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Executive_(government)',3,1,'100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Executive_(government)',3,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Executive_Board_of_the_European_Central_Bank',1,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Existence',5,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Existence',5,1,'1001151.txt','Data protection is a typical example of one area where it makes real sense to create central control points. The existing juxtaposition of countless Community data protection regulations, which are called any number of different things to boot, is neither conducive to effective legal protection, nor does it make for a transparent legal situation. The continued existence of national control points is beyond doubt. Legal protection must be provided as close to the citizens as possible. Not only will the amalgamation of Community control points have a positive effect in terms of transparency and legal clarity, it will also help keep costs down. At long last, a constructive, truly expedient measure at Community level.','Data protection is a typical example of one area where it makes real sense to create central control points. The existing juxtaposition of countless Community data protection regulations, which are called any number of different things to boot, is neither conducive to effective legal protection, nor does it make for a transparent legal situation. The continued existence of national control points is beyond doubt. Legal protection must be provided as close to the citizens as possible. Not only will the amalgamation of Community control points have a positive effect in terms of transparency and legal clarity, it will also help keep costs down. At long last, a constructive, truly expedient measure at Community level.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Existence',5,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Existence',5,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Existence',5,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Experience',5,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Experience',5,1,'1001161.txt','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Experience',5,1,'100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Experience',5,1,'10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Experience',5,1,'1004565.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli\'s, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended  and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Experiment',1,1,'1001149.txt','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Explanation',2,1,'100249.txt','Madam President, if the House permits, I should like to give an oral explanation of my Amendment No 51. Some linguistic confusion has arisen, and what I sought to achieve is not reflected at all in this wording. Instead of what is suggested by the words of producers and artists, especially from the non profit-making sector, my primary intention was that we should include in this circle representatives of content providers. Yesterday, before and after the debate, I discussed the matter with some individual Members of the House. Several Members consider that these representatives of the content providers are subsumed under other categories of representatives. This shows that the wording is not clear and unequivocal. The programme is called eContent . We should therefore include content providers in it. This ought not to pose a great problem, in my view. I should appreciate your support for this amendment.','Madam President, if the House permits, I should like to give an oral explanation of my Amendment No 51. Some linguistic confusion has arisen, and what I sought to achieve is not reflected at all in this wording. Instead of what is suggested by the words \"of producers and artists, especially from the non profit-making sector\", my primary intention was that we should include in this circle representatives of content providers. Yesterday, before and after the debate, I discussed the matter with some individual Members of the House. Several Members consider that these representatives of the content providers are subsumed under other categories of representatives. This shows that the wording is not clear and unequivocal. The programme is called eContent . We should therefore include content providers in it. This ought not to pose a great problem, in my view. I should appreciate your support for this amendment.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Explanation',2,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Exploitation_of_labour',2,1,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Exploitation_of_labour',2,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Exploitation_of_natural_resources',4,1,'1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Exploitation_of_natural_resources',4,1,'1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Exploitation_of_natural_resources',4,1,'1004307.txt','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.','Madam President, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. The Commission’s White Paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. In order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. New technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. The production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in Europe, which must be exploited. The multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. I see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united Europe.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Exploitation_of_natural_resources',4,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1004137.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on general product safety is so important to us because it relates to a key area, namely those products that are not covered by the CE mark. But this brings me straight to one of the weak points of this proposal for a directive on general product safety, namely the fact that it will no longer be apparent to the consumer whether a product is really safe. This makes our Amendment No 3 especially important, because it provides quite simply for external certification by authorised testing agencies. There is an urgent need for the Commission to consider the introduction of verification marks – marks which certify to the consumer that a product is safe and, in some cases, that the product is of above-average quality. A product is then deemed to be safe when its safety has been verified by an accredited test centre. This is of particular importance to small and medium-sized businesses. If we think about the precautionary principle and prevention, it becomes clear that incentives must be created to encourage companies to have their products tested. I believe that testing by a third party, an impartial agency, would be an important means of easing the pressure on market-monitoring programmes. And this easing of pressure, along with the predictability deriving from testing and certification, would enable consumers to establish very clearly and easily where reliably safe products can be bought. On the export ban, let me say that there are naturally many countries whose standards differ greatly from those in Europe. I believe we should not be so haughty as to regard other countries’ standards as inferior and to assume that ours are the only good and valid standards.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1004161.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, global international trade plays an essential role in securing jobs in Europe, and especially in creating new ones. We have now got through a development round the core task of which is to bring about the right changes to internal imports into Europe. Although imports are, in principle, a very important and very good way to supporting development aid, we must not, on the other hand, overlook the need for our own small and medium-sized enterprises to be encouraged in their turn to export their products. The euro/US dollar parity and China’s present growth potential in excess of 8% per annum must prompt us to consider how we are to maintain our trade balance in future. To do that, we do, of course, have to be capable of competing on global markets. I believe it is a good thing, and that it will in future be important, that Europe should take on a certain leadership role in this area, that we should use regular conferences within Europe as a means of affirming our commitment to this and, as soon as possible, come up with feasible strategies and objectives, with a definite timetable. A single multilateral legal framework is, of course, of particular interest to Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ in any case two-thirds of our workers. We are not interested in a complex international structure that only large conglomerates and their lawyers can cope with. The developing countries are not alone in needing clear and simple structures that will, in future, bring willingness to perform, the consequent access to prosperity and, finally, peace. Here too, we need to distinguish between equity based on distribution and that based upon what people contribute, and we should keep both these aspects in mind. Opening up our markets does, though, bring problems with it, for we must remain capable of competing internationally in the future. It is for this reason that Parliament must deal with this topic not merely in general terms; instead, this parliamentary assembly should, in future, put the emphasis on Europe.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1004181.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that \'food security and sustainable rural development strategies\' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU\'s example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1004200.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would like to thank Mrs Ayuso for this report and for the work she has done. She has spared neither effort nor trouble in trying to bring about a positive outcome in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but that has unfortunately not been possible. Around 20 million hectolitres of alcohol are produced in Europe every year, around 13 million hectolitres of which are of agricultural origin. The attempt has often been made to create a common market organisation for alcohol in the EU. Up to now, proposals for this have always failed at Council level, as the national regulatory systems were so heterogeneous, and the frameworks and aid structures so diverse, that no common denominator could be found. This time, the hurdle at which it fell was that of the legal basis. The new Commission proposal envisages what is termed a ‘lightweight’ COM, with no provision for intervention mechanisms to the detriment of the EAGGF or of export refunds, and, hence, comprises only the definition of products, a system of monitoring foreign trade through import and export licences, the possibility of laying down tariff quotas and a protection clause, the collection of statistical data or specific provisions on state aid. My response to this is that I basically welcome the Commission proposal, even though the current position of the alcohol sector in Austria is not a very important problem. I am well aware, though, that for other Member States the inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposed COM is a central issue. It is precisely for this reason that I do not see it as possible, because there is no basis that is legally incontestable. It is for that reason, too, that I fully endorse our rapporteur\'s view that we should call on the Commission to submit a new proposal. At this point I would like to make a more critical observation on the relationship between agricultural and synthetic alcohols. The concerns of farmers and of the rural areas as a whole matter to me. It is from this perspective that I would like to point out that the agricultural manufacture of alcohol as the product of specific raw materials such as, for example, wine, fruit, corn, and potatoes represents an important trade outlet. I want to firmly emphasise that this portfolio should cover the production and sale of agricultural alcohol and not of synthetic alcohol. Synthetic alcohol is in my view to be used only for industry, pharmacy, energy and so on, and not mixed with any other products. As a representative of rural areas in Parliament, I will always put forward the interests of farmers and of rural areas, as multifunctional, farm-based, universal and environmentally-responsible agriculture is the model for land management throughout the whole of Europe. It is my view that any new proposal by the Commission should, in any case, provide for a specific Management Committee, as the present Management Committee for Wine is already overstretched by its plethora of competences. In conclusion, I wish to declare my wholehearted commitment to a common agricultural policy, from which I have learned of the problems of farmers in the different Member States.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(9.210340371976184,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,2,'1004225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs González Álvarez has produced a very convincing report, but my group does not agree with the idea of product liability applying to services as envisaged by the Commission. For example, in many sectors, products are no longer assembled by the manufacturer, with the component parts instead being delivered to dealers. This means that everyone involved in the sales chain who can affect the safety characteristics of a product now bears liability as a manufacturer, so that all dealers who carry out assembly work are classified as manufacturers. We believe that in such cases the trade should not be burdened with manufacturer\'s duties under product safety legislation. There are certainly other ways of guaranteeing adequate protection for consumers under civil law, for example, compensation for damages as a consequence of contractual liability. I must say that I was amazed that the Commission\'s experts have not solved this problem themselves and I trust that the new Commissioner will give this problem some more thought. And I hope that there will not be any problems with the Commission as regards exempting charitable organisations and non-profit making bodies from the provisions of this product safety directive. When it comes to exports, I quite agree that exports should be banned in cases where the Commission has stopped a product from being placed on the market or has ordered a product recall. But a Commission requirement for safety checks cannot be sufficient grounds for bringing whole branches of the export business to a halt. As various honourable Members have already said, at the very least proof that different safety rules apply in the importing country should be accepted. I can only urge the Commission to think again about this problem area, please. We are at first reading. At second or third reading it is necessary to secure the famous 314 votes, and if the report is still in the same form as now that will certainly not happen.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1004226.txt','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.','Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers\' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries\' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1004238.txt','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Export',10,1,'1004291.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that 826 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, I welcome the fact that this House is aware of the situation and is adopting a resolution on the forthcoming World Food Summit in Rome. At the World Food Summit in 1996, four priorities were set: food security, international agricultural trade, sustainable management of natural resources, and rural development. These commitments by Member States should now be reaffirmed and action taken to achieve the goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. A further key point will be the approach to, and management of, water resources. The EU must continue to focus in particular on poverty reduction and sustainable development. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, a sound economic policy, gender equality and environmental aspects must be at the forefront of development. There is a clear link between hunger and poverty, and hunger can be both the cause and the outcome of poverty, conflicts and war. The development of entire regions, and rural regions in particular, depends on this. Then, of course, there are natural disasters such as draught and floods, which simply deepen poverty. The international community has a responsibility to provide relief in these situations. Commissioner, the EU\'s policies should be shaped in a way which enables us to move away from short-term food aid towards long-term support which provides farmers with the necessary technology and know-how at local level. Our goal should be to promote agriculture in the developing countries vigorously so that it is capable of sustaining its own population and is no longer dependent on international food aid. In this context, I should like to mention the EU\'s trade restrictions and export refunds which are often sharply criticised. The European Union has developed an agricultural model which is designed to establish framework conditions for all farmers in Europe, regardless of location – even in less-favoured and peripheral regions – to operate effectively with a secure income. The job of the farmers is not only to produce food; they also play a key role in protecting and preserving natural resources and landscape. With its multifunctionality, all its specific features and social significance, our European agriculture model could set an example to others. Agriculture is not directly comparable with other economic sectors. Given that the EU is also the world\'s largest importer of agricultural products, I do not think we can continue to voice criticism of the CAP in this way. I would therefore urge the critics to adopt a more creative approach.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Export_subsidy',1,1,'1004620.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Extended_family',1,1,'1004619.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.','Mr President, Commissioners, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. However, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. They are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. They have no place here. I am against every form of discrimination, and I would like to make this clear with a number of examples. I am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but I oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. The fact that marriage between persons of different sexes – the core unit of society – is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in Berlin. I also oppose the attempts to grant all non-EU citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as EU citizens. This would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against EU citizens. I oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term ‘family’ to a large and ill-defined group. This is unacceptable, for it removes Member States’ right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. Let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. We will not support the examples which I have cited or other political demands. However, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur Mr Cornillet.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Extended_play',1,1,'10022.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Extermination_camp',2,1,'100133.txt','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Extermination_camp',2,1,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'1001269.txt','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim less is more. Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim \"less is more\". Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens; the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'100273.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Swoboda, our rapporteur, and Mr Kronberger are both Austrian. That is, of course, no coincidence and they have both explained the situation in Austria in detail. However, I do not see this as a purely Austrian problem. This report and tomorrow\'s vote are about a decision with far-reaching implications. I am not trying – nor do I have any intention of trying – to play the internal market, competition and environmental and transport policy off against each other. I see two points at issue here. First, to repeat the concern expressed by my fellow members, we should not emulate President Bush by ending an agreement unilaterally. Secondly, how serious are we about our European environmental and transport policy? How serious are we about implementing it and how efficiently do we want to promote it? So we are not just talking about reducing nitrogen oxide in the Brenner pass. We need a coherent transport concept for the whole of the Alps and we need to internationalise the external costs. Until we apply real costs, roads will be cheaper and neither combined transport nor the railways will be able to compete. The whole of the ecologically sensitive Alpine region needs our support within the terms of the Alpine Convention. Our citizens, and I do not just mean in these sensitive regions, are counting on the European Parliament and the sense of responsibility of all its members.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'100430.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the heavy goods vehicles that travel through Austria are seen by all Austrians as an important issue in home affairs policy. It was important when what was known as the Transit Agreement was being negotiated between 1992 and 1994, a time when we even made our consent to membership of the Community conditional upon the finding of a sound and forward-looking solution to this problem. Just as we did then, we see the Transit Regulation as a sort of leading issue. Neither then nor now did we, or do we, want some sort of preferential treatment in the form of special arrangements for our country that would amount to long-term derogations from the Internal Market. What we then wanted, and what we continue to seek, is an EU transport policy that points the way for others to follow by taking into account, along with the freedoms of the internal market, concerns relating to those parts of the environment affected by the traffic, especially in sensitive areas, and the concerns of the people who live near such traffic. We regard these concerns of ours as being in harmony with the Commission\'s objectives as regards transport. In its Transport White Paper, which we shall soon be discussing, it promises that the planned new transport infrastructure costs directive will include provisions on the imposition of charges for the use of the infrastructure as well as on the integration of the external costs, with such provisions reflecting serious consideration of the use of cross-subsidies to benefit more environmentally friendly means of transport. We want all those things, too. That is why it is so important that no gap should be allowed to occur between the expiry of the transit regime and the new directive entering into force. That is also why we need an appropriate transitional regime. The Danish Presidency of the Council, which worked hard to achieve a compromise at Council level between all those concerned with this highly touchy issue, came close to achieving its objective, narrowly missing it only because there were no longer sufficient transport ministers coming to Brussels. Now, following our resolution in Parliament, we will be calling on the Council, at the meeting of its transport ministers, to pass a formal resolution adopting the compromise which has already been arrived at in this matter, and it would be important in view of this if we in this House were also to be able to express our belief in a joint, sound, and forward-looking solution to this problem. On behalf of all the Austrian Members of this House, I therefore ask you to give every possible support to Amendment No 18, which enjoys the essential backing of all four of the political groupings in Austria. The environment, and the people who live in the affected areas, will thank us for it.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'1004328.txt','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.','Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.'),(4.605170185988092,4.605170185988092,1000,'Externality',10,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Extinction',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Extradition',2,1,'100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Extradition',2,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Extremism',4,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Extremism',4,1,'1004227.txt','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.','Mr President, the European Union bears a particular responsibility in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The action plan adopted on 8 September in Durban is an important message and a contribution to creating awareness in the fight against racism and xenophobia. The conference\'s eventual agreement on a joint declaration is to be welcomed. Although many, but not all, NGO\'s and also many States strenuously attempted to convert the Conference into a unilateral forum of condemnation of Israel and to make the issue of slavery and colonialism an opportunity for demanding compensation payments, it can be counted a success that the Final Document did not take up extreme positions of this sort and that it came into being at all. With hindsight, however, we must ask ourselves whether the European Union\'s generous support for the NGOs, which I consider justified in principle and which amounted to EUR 3.7 million, always found its way to the right destinations, all the more so as agitprop arguments to the effect that, for example, Zionism is equivalent to racism, are very much part of the political vocabulary of many States, Syria being one example. The biggest terrorist attack to date against the civilised world took place three days after the Durban Conference. None other than President Mubarak of Egypt has pointed out that human rights issues are often misused by terrorist organisations in order to build up their international networks. Mark well, though, that human rights and the fight against racial discrimination and xenophobia are indivisible and of global significance. Nobody is immune, as demonstrated by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the most recent tragic events in Northern Ireland. The Durban Action Plan is an important document for every State, but also for the European Union as a whole, which bears great responsibility in this respect, above all in the framework of the United Nations. I wish the EU\'s role were more visible there as well.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Extremism',4,1,'1004495.txt','Mr President, institutional reform is on the agenda for Nice. Do you think that the Austrian model, i.e. bilateral majority resolutions, will be used in future as a way of passing resolutions which bypass the European institutions and of forming a new institution or a new group in order to circumvent unanimity in the Council? I have a supplementary question: how do you behave towards extreme left-wing parties and what is your opinion of them?','Mr President, institutional reform is on the agenda for Nice. Do you think that the Austrian model, i.e. bilateral majority resolutions, will be used in future as a way of passing resolutions which bypass the European institutions and of forming a new institution or a new group in order to circumvent unanimity in the Council? I have a supplementary question: how do you behave towards extreme left-wing parties and what is your opinion of them?'),(11.042921835724492,5.521460917862246,1000,'Extremism',4,2,'10045.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many peace plans has the Middle East already witnessed? How many were not worth the paper they were written on? It is futile to answer this question. It is only now that conditions are in place which, despite everything, do have a prospect of success. This is undoubtedly due to the European Union\'s efforts and the Roadmap which it produced together with its Quartet partners, the USA, Russia and the United Nations. Of course, there have been plans before, including the Mitchell plan. A Roadmap and a good timetable certainly do not guarantee that we will actually get to where we want to be. There have to be the right actors on both sides, and of course there also has to be pressure from the United States on Israel. While the European Union is important because it also has credibility among the Palestinians – too much, sometimes, for the Israelis – I do feel optimistic, after the meeting between Abu Mazen, Mr Sharon and President Bush, that the new peace initiative can be kept separate from the deadly cycle of violence and reprisals. This is partly to do with the overall political environment in the Middle East. With the fall of Saddam Hussein\'s regime – whatever you may think of the US intervention – one obstacle has fallen away; the system has been removed, cutting the ground from under the radical Palestinian movements and those who are in favour of extremism. Iran too, which has always provided the backing for Hizbollah, should play a constructive role here and think about whether it wants to continue supporting this organisation as it has done until now. There is currently an opportunity to isolate the radical forces and give the moderates a chance. This approach can only work if the European Union and the United States complement each other and do not pursue different strategies. While the situation in Iraq is tragic and unsatisfactory, there is also a possibility, for the first time, that Syria and therefore perhaps Lebanon as well will join a peace process with Israel. However, that means that Israel must make sacrifices too. Prime Minister Sharon must not bow to pressure from radical settlers and movements, as this would ensure that Israel could only develop within its biblical borders. The EU must encourage and back him in this as well. Most of the Israeli population is willing to make some sacrifices in order to live in peace and security. However, this also means, of course, that the Palestinian side must abandon its strident demand for refugee return on a one-to-one basis, which would spell the end for the State of Israel. Should the European Union be involved with its own peacekeeping troops? This option requires serious thought. I myself find it difficult to foresee any real benefit, firstly because Israel has never entrusted any military force but its own with its security, and secondly because the force could become the target for suicide attacks without being able to prevent them. Ultimately, everything stands or falls by President Bush\'s determination to help the Palestinians live in their own state. He must show this determination even in an election year. The only way to prevent the Roadmap from trickling into the desert sands is for the European Union and the USA to work together and adopt a unified approach. If they appear to be competitors in the Middle East, this will create a window of opportunity for fresh extremism. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Eyewash',1,1,'100232.txt','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Face_the_Facts',1,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001106.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.'),(5.406125319138342,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,2,'1001134.txt','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001166.txt','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001171.txt','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100123.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001271.txt','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'10013.txt','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100196.txt','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100233.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today; for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure; what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100260.txt','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and religion. Our history bears the marks of war, of war against each other, and Europe’s indistinct borders mean that we cannot even be clearly recognised as a geographical entity.  Therefore, what is it that binds us together? What enables us to live together? The answer to this may seem insubstantial to many people. Nonetheless, I believe it is the only answer available to us: democracy and human rights. These are what unite Europe. Dubious though some of the things emanating from this continent may have been, in terms of democracy and human rights this continent has sent out a message of indisputable global resonance. In the wake of the twentieth century, the century of great atrocities and crimes to end all crimes, that is this continent’s moral imperative. Human dignity is sacrosanct!  That is why we cannot rest content with the fact that all Member States have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights when the European Union has not. That is why it should no longer be deemed appropriate for EU law to infringe national law, the constitutional law of the Member States that is, when the Union itself does not have a clear and comprehensive system of fundamental rights. It should therefore disturb us that fresh fundamental rights conflicts are breaking out in the spheres of information and communication science and biotechnology, but Europe does not have a consensus on fundamental rights with which to provide answers. That is why it cannot be a matter of indifference to us that parliamentary and judicial supervision – and thus guarantees of fundamental rights – have been weakened considerably in highly sensitive areas of political union: for example, police and judicial cooperation or foreign and security policy. That is why the European Union will remain incomplete as long as the primacy of the law and the power of the institutions continue to grow in strength, but the citizens’ rights to freedom and to a defence, and the legal guarantees and legal protection they are afforded do not keep pace. The European Parliament has a long, unbroken tradition when it comes to defending fundamental and human rights. That is why the decisions reached at the Cologne and Tampere Summits can be looked on as the fulfilment of the demands Parliament has been making for many a long year. These demands are in keeping with this tradition and they are in the nature of things, in the nature of fundamental rights; in other words, no rights are to be promised unless they are to be made law for the citizens. Legal validity and access to the courts of law is inextricably linked with fundamental and human rights.  Exactly the same applies to the indivisibility of fundamental rights. All the policies, institutions and bodies of the European Union must be subject to this Charter of Fundamental Rights. Otherwise, we would be making the citizens of this Union a promise about human rights that would remain nothing more than a proclamation. In other words, we would only be making a pretence of fulfilling the people’s expectations. And today’s resolution, if it is adopted, picks up on one of Parliament’s old demands that has never been so important as it is today. This Charter of Fundamental Rights must form the cornerstone, the foundation of the process we need if we are to provide the European Union with a constitution. We cannot do without this Charter of Fundamental Rights if we are to construct a European democracy in this supranational area.  Madam President, perhaps it is one of life’s ironies that you have nominated an Austrian as rapporteur, as co-rapporteur, for this Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am grateful to you for trusting in me, and although it may not be customary practice, with your permission I would very much like to dedicate my contribution over the last few months to this work, to the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population that is defending the great European consensus against deeds and words. Human dignity is sacrosanct! (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100281.txt','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991 perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.','Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100287.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, further to what Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has said, it can be seen that there are two sides to every question. A majority of members of visual artists’ associations and representative bodies, with whom I have spoken during the last few years, now want to see European resale rights. Even the majority of those in the art trade want to see common resale rights. Politicians have been trying for years to negotiate a compromise acceptable to everyone. Admittedly, the Council has not really striven for harmonisation but, rather, put together a framework with a number of ingenious loopholes. Admittedly, the Council was not particularly flexible and did not pay very much attention to the European Parliament’s proposals, but it is, at the end of the day, an acceptable compromise. I cannot speak for the Commission, but there are one or two things to indicate that the Commission, too, was not happy, or in agreement, with all the Council proposals, especially those regarding the transitional periods. In what was not so much a debate as a veto policy, the Commission, too, played its role, however, in making resale rights possible. Now we have this document, on the subject of which I would say that, although we might well protest, we ought to be saying ‘yes’ to what is, at long last, a victory. We have this paper, which can be improved upon, but it is precisely because we now have the paper that such improvements can be made. Opponents should be somewhat more careful in their criticism rather than appear, as critics, to be all of the same mind. That is because there are some people who reject resale rights on principle and others who would like to level specific and very serious criticisms which may be of vital importance to themselves or to particular players, for example to the smallest art galleries which, in fact, are instrumental in creating a pool of talent. It is they who assume the major risk. They have a great many problems with the tax differentials, administration and insurance contracts. They are scarcely allowed to take visual artists’ work on commission. For the most part, they have to buy such works. If these smallest galleries have to buy works of art and are then – as anticipated in this proposal – unable to resell them three years later, and if perhaps, only after that period, have to sell them for less than their purchase price, they are bearing a risk and are losing out on two counts, namely in terms of both the price and of the resale rights. My group will nonetheless vote in favour of this proposal, although there are still one or two improvements to be made in terms of both resale rights and of related aspects. Finally, I should not like to brush aside one further argument, for that is not something I can do, but, rather, to qualify it somewhat. It is only one specific lobby that is arguing the point about market migration. We have supply and demand, and there are certain things that are sought in Europe, and which have always been sought in Europe, and not in the United States, and vice versa. It is important that this European decision, which will hopefully be taken by a majority of us tomorrow, should exert enormous pressure in favour of representatives campaigning for resale rights in Switzerland and also in the United States. They are waiting for us to say yes, and I hope that this is what they will hear tomorrow.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100288.txt','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.','Mr President, I would like to clarify something in connection with Amendment No 10, tabled by Mr van Velzen, Mrs Ridruejo and Mr Chichester. In the German text it says in the fourth line: “… considers it important to clarify the following concepts”. Now I recall that this very sentence was the object of debate in the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, drafted by Mrs Ridruejo. We agreed on the sentence: “…considers it to be important to reinforce”, not “clarify”. I just wanted to clarify whether this is a translation error or has something crept in that should not be there? Could this be clarified please?  There is a second point I would like to raise. I will own up to the fact that I have omitted to table a motion for a split vote, on behalf of my group. However, if it were to be possible to apply for a split vote for Amendment No 8, then I would do so orally herewith, because although the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance endorses the first half of the amendment, it most definitely does not endorse the second part! If you cannot accept a split vote then we will have no choice but to reject the entire amendment.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004122.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo; they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100413.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just an hour ago I was still sitting with my French teacher, making a big effort to learn some more French. I must tell you, it is really fun learning a language. It is good when you know that you do not have to take an examination afterwards but are learning for yourself and in order to communicate with other people and treat them in the right way. I have to say that I am honestly enjoying learning French (The President asked the speaker whether he might not like to continue his speech in French.)  (Laughter)  I believe that that is also what we need in the future: for learning to be fun. In life, the learning pyramid is, in fact, turning. When it comes to learning, we really used to think of young full-time students, whereas now we see that people in employment are having to learn more and more. I believe that we, ourselves, in the European Parliament can confirm that we are actually, day by day, doing more in the way of learning, evaluating and passing judgment than ever we had to do at school or university. With increasing age, you also become more aware of what it is you would like to learn. You become significantly more selective, and it is the very joy of learning that makes you enthusiastic and want to learn new things. What we have here, then, is a paradigm shift, not only in the economy, but also in broad strata of society, not only through e-learning and the new opportunities provided by technology, but also through a change in consciousness. I believe that this very change in consciousness shows that adults in all walks of life really do consider lifelong learning of this kind to be more and more important. I therefore consider it a very good thing that we in the European Parliament should have a good look at long-term strategic issues of this kind. Especially on a Friday like today, it is important, I believe, that we should also have the courage to think in terms of long-term strategy about how we might best provide support to the people of Europe. Particularly for elderly people, the subject of health becomes increasingly important on into old age. We still have a lot to learn about, for example, how to eat properly and how to treat our bodies. I believe that precisely these fundamental virtues are very important for the future. What do we need now at the level of the European Community? We need a general system of accreditation for private, public and in-house education, a European education passport like a European driving licence so that the building blocks of education can be used and compared throughout Europe. We need ways of comparing educational expenditure and revenue throughout Europe, as well as ways of comparing qualifications. We should be trying to introduce best practices worldwide as a spur to positive competition. We ought to be learning from the whole world which system and which form of education are best for our people and citizens in Europe. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004154.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004156.txt','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?','Mr President, young people are particularly affected by pensions since, after all, they contribute to pensions during their working life and subsequently benefit from those pensions. Do you have in mind providing information, through schools in particular, about the future shape of pensions systems and about the fact that mobility will, of course, be encouraged if these ideas are actually implemented?'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004157.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be quite frank: I am not happy about the fact that we are adopting yet another resolution. I think that the situation for everyone concerned is far too serious for us simply to be carrying on with politics as usual. Please do not misunderstand me: I certainly would not wish to prevent the dreadful situation of farmers and rural communities from being given the attention it deserves at European level, quite the contrary. But I am afraid that if this discussion is not addressed seriously, it will simply create even more uncertainty among our citizens. The tragedy faced by the farmers needs more than headlines. The survival of a profession is at stake. Although the farmers currently receive up to 30% less for their cattle, a kilo of beef costs just as much, if not more, than before. And this is the case even in my own Member State, which fortunately still has no cases of foot-and-mouth disease or BSE. The situation in the regions where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is critical. It is not only the farmers who are affected; it has an impact on everyone in these rural areas, including tourism and thousands of jobs. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the farmers and the rural communities who are suffering as a result of this disease. I hope that everyone understands what damage this is doing to farmers, and that years of work will be required to rebuild these herds. Let me say a few words about vaccination policy: I support the emergency vaccination measures in order to prevent the virus from spreading. But we must not give people the impression that the animals are healthy as a result of vaccination, and that we do not need to cull them. I believe that we must continue to cull if we wish to regain our disease-free status. I also hope that the Commission, but above all the Member States, fulfil their responsibilities. I notice time and again that throughout the European Union, there are still no disinfectant mats at the airports. This hygiene problem is a matter of acceptance in the Member States.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004203.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004207.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Save the Planet! This is a mission which we have to accomplish. Sustainability is a really important concept, particularly in times like these. We should try to set an example because the environment is a really important criterion for future generations. However, I should particularly like to come back to Amendment No 3, which concerns the profit motive. The profit motive is also something completely natural and sensible. Companies in the red or countries which get into debt cannot pay the salaries which are desirable for employees and civil servants. We are in favour of high salaries, so we also need to make profits. At the end of the day, I also support small and medium-sized enterprises. There are 18 million of them in the European Union, on which jobs directly depend. Whether profits or long-term losses are made threatens the company’s existence and in particular, also the jobs it creates. I should now like to come to Amendment No 8 and point out that criminal law is obviously not like occupational practice legislation. I would have liked us to have obtained at least an opinion on this from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market because such issues are, after all, extremely important in principle and in my view, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy cannot deal with them conclusively on its own. I should also like to make it clear that the company’s obligation to gain trust must be defined or interpreted in such a way that it must of course relate to the rules concerning the extent of the authorisation for the plant. The individual company must, of course, be aware of the rules, so that it can then also comply with them. On Amendment No 19, I should like to say that it can obviously only be taken to mean deliberately providing misleading information, and Amendment No 20 obviously only deals with financial gain. On Amendment No 25, I should like to say that within the insurance industry it is in fact still not possible to calculate or insure pure environmental damage. We would need it to be defined precisely. I believe, nevertheless, that this proposal is by and large very sensible, especially when we think of enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries. If we create a legal framework for the future now, it could be very useful to our thinking on the environment. However, I am of the opinion that the criminal sanctions should first and foremost only be applied in the case of criminal intent or persistent gross negligence. The threat of imprisonment is an approach that really threatens a person’s livelihood! I should not like to put a worker behind bars and threaten his livelihood because on one occasion, he acts with gross negligence by not turning off a tap. I would therefore suggest that we are extremely cautious with these criteria because this is obviously a very sensitive area. We should also think very carefully how to optimise the best practice method in this instance, that is to say, best practice and benchmarking and offering incentives are an important basis particularly for environmental protection. The European Union, in particular, has shown that a great deal can be achieved in this respect with numerous incentives, research and development, and consultation. However, training and certification are obviously necessary too. We have already spoken about EMAS this week. If we follow this positive route via incentives, then we will really be protecting our planet.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004224.txt','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.','Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004244.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004245.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner you have done an excellent piece of work.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by very warmly thanking Commissioner Liikanen for the very important and forward-looking step the Commission has taken. We are all aware that, when problems crop up, the simplest way to deal with them is by means of incentives and assistance. The Sixth Framework Programme for Research, which we have adopted, contains many incentives to achieve improvements by the use of scientific methods. My second point is that we have standards, whether national or European, which give pride of place to the principle of mutual recognition and thereby make competition in the market possible. The next stage, which is new and in fact sensational, is a voluntary commitment, whereby very strong pressure is brought to bear by both parties. An amicable settlement has to be reached, and additional criteria can be introduced in order to actually enforce such settlements. On the one hand, we have a simple contract, as originally planned, which of course involves risks and obligations for all parties to the contract and creates a number of problems, and on the other, we have the very slimline directive we are working on now, which we will use to do nothing more than draw up a timetable and lay down methods of supervision and assessment so that Parliament and the Commission can keep an eye on the progress made. What I would like, and I believe that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would like it as well, is for this directive to amount to no more than one page. That would serve as an example of how we are constantly up to date in laying down principles and demonstrating how our work in lawmaking can also be slimline and forward-looking. Thank you, Commissioner; you have done an excellent piece of work.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004273.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, no-one should take the decision regarding the new Commission lightly. What the citizens of Europe are expecting is for work finally to begin again after the long months of crisis and paralysis, but under better conditions which increase people’s confidence in the Commission. The great weakness in the construction of the European Union is still there, whether or not, at the end of the day, we can only approve the Commission as a whole (and this despite the fact that we have grave reservations, at least about one Commissioner-designate). I am aware of the fact that, as President-designate of the Commission, you have already accepted significant political demands on our part in order to make it possible for the principle of individual responsibility to be transposed. I especially emphasise this because this demand for individual responsibility is anchored in a proposal of mine which was included in the European Parliament’s resolution of 23 March 1999. What I wish for on behalf of my delegation but also as one of my country’s MEPs is proper supervisory control over the Commission and confidence on the part of the citizens in both the Commission and the European Parliament. Confidence of this kind cannot be taken for granted but has to be justified over and over again. We cannot just issue a blank cheque, nor would we want to. We need strong, functioning institutions. Otherwise, the European idea will not translate credibly into practice. I subscribe totally to your programme, which is dedicated to glasnost, which is not about just tinkering with the institutions but about far-reaching reform, which strives for sustainable job creation through consistent liberalisation of the economy, which attaches a high value to the principle of subsidiarity and which considers it necessary to find adequate responses to demographic developments in Europe. The European Union must remain attractive as a model. The zone of peace and prosperity must, with credibility and a sense of vision, be extended to include the candidate countries for accession to an enlarged EU. The European idea which forms the basis of the EU needs a new impulse. The personalities who translate this idea into practice must be in a position to do this. Individual responsibility and co-operation with Parliament in all phases of the process are indispensable prior conditions of this.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100428.txt','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.','Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004280.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.','Mr President, Commissioner, it has already been mentioned on several occasions that the proposal for a joint initiative by all the EU Member States goes back to the initiative of the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Dr Wolfgang Schüssel, who, as Foreign Minister in 1998, presented it to Europe within the framework of the Austrian Council Presidency, as well as to the United Nations in New York, in order to bring about a resumption of the draft joint action to combat pornography on the Internet. The motivation for this initiative was clearly that all those who wish to make policy for the future must, on the one hand, have the courage to carry out necessary reforms and, on the other, must positively and effectively avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by technological and global development and human resources, all the while taking responsibility for pointing out risks and undesirable developments and for drawing the necessary boundaries. Anyone who does not take action against children and minors being abused and lead astray is jeopardising the future. The aim of the Austrian initiative was, as previous speakers have pointed out, to draw attention to the fact that the Internet, given its special nature, offers new and, in the light of its scope, not always positive, opportunities, indeed incredible opportunities for the distribution of child pornography. Pornographic material can be distributed via the Internet in unlimited amounts and by the most direct route. There is the danger that children themselves may surf the Internet and come across pornographic images of their peers, thereby sustaining psychological damage. Combating child pornography and the misuse of the Internet is, therefore, both a worldwide and a specifically European responsibility and we call upon all Member States to take action in light of this report. We welcome the debate on the age limit. However, I share the view of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that we should have fixed the age limit at 18 and I hope that the initiatives will lead to the highest possible age limit being set in all Member States. We welcome the fact that there will be a uniform definition and I support all measures to also place providers under obligation since today’s discussion can only be the start of a debate and of initiatives and is far from the end. Actions must follow.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'10044.txt','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, the European Parliament\'s Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004426.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Commissioner, I really wish with all my heart – given my political views – that the Portuguese had had an easier presidency, a presidency without the strains caused by the bilateral sanctions imposed on the Federal Austrian Government and therefore on my country. I wish above all that you had not had to take the blame for a policy possibly cooked up for you by others. The longer this policy remains on the boil the more indigestible it is, not only for my country but also for the whole European Union. You see, you cannot help but notice a certain contradiction in the fact that these measures were intended to be entirely political and were also taken at political level and yet to find a way out of this blind alley – which is entirely desirable and in everyone\'s interests – a solution is now having to be sought by means of a legal instrument. It was not least for this reason – since these measures are of course devoid of any legal base – that Parliament\'s President, Nicole Fontaine, pointed out at the beginning of the Feira summit that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on 15 June calling on the Council to analyse relations between Austria and the other 14 Member States, and to draw up with all the parties concerned a procedure which would enable a solution to be found which would be acceptable to everyone. This procedure seems to have been established: the President of the European Court of Human Rights has been appointed and he in turn will nominate three wise persons who will report on Austria. In this context I must say that it is regrettable that no timetable was drawn up here. That would have made the exercise easier. It is very regrettable that even before this forum starts work its conclusions are already being prejudged by the future President and the work of the forum is coming under pressure because people are acting as though it were politically irrelevant. I can only hope that people accept the political relevance of this report from this legal institution and that a golden goal will be scored here under the French Presidency, namely an early end to the sanctions against my country!'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004433.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in four weeks’ time, the European Union will be experiencing its biggest enlargement so far, an event that will bring about long-term change in Europe, and one that must be a popular success for the European Union. There can be no doubt about the fact that the enlarged EU will need time to consolidate. The public can scarcely understand that an event of this magnitude does not happen all at once, and that we need, at the same time, to set in motion a process to speed enlargement up. It is with these things in mind that the debate on Turkish accession must be conducted. I do not suppose that anyone in this House is unaware of Turkey’s geopolitical significance, or does not welcome its steps towards democracy and human rights. Nor, though, can there be anyone who would deny that there is a gulf between what legislation presumes and what has actually been implemented with regard to all these issues. Reference has already been made to the fact that Turkey is one of the countries producing the most asylum seekers, and Austria, for example, grants asylum to more Turks than to anyone else. I nevertheless believe, as does the delegation to which I belong, that, in concentrating on purely political criteria, the report on Turkey takes too narrow a view. That is why my delegation and I endorse all the motions aimed at securing a broader basis for this debate. There is no reason why the Commission should not produce a study on the effects of Turkish accession on the European Union, whether as part of the report that is due in October or as a separate study. Consideration must be given to the repercussions on structural policy, on the common agricultural policy, and on the institutions of the European Union. When the report is produced, in October, the options for Turkey should also be set out, and these should not focus solely on accession; we have to offer them alternatives in good time. That we owe to ourselves and to them. I would like to conclude by extending warm thanks to Mr Oostlander, who has, as rapporteur, been magnanimous enough not to inhibit discussion, and has remained sensitive enough to keep faith with himself. What this report on Turkey now presents us with, though, is the opportunity to send an important political signal and to put the debate on a broader basis. It is not acceptable that we should limit ourselves to political criteria in the narrowest sense of the word. It must also be possible to examine and assess the likely effects on the European Union. If that is not done, the voters will never forgive us.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the last speaker, I would like briefly to go into four particular points again. Firstly, as we see it, enlargement is not merely an obligation. It is true that we are motivated by moral considerations, but we are also committed to enlargement owing to deeply held political convictions. Enlargement is a win-win situation. Both sides: the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries, stand to benefit from enlargement once it has taken place. Secondly, enlargement – both the enlargement of the European Union and that of the Economic and Monetary Union – is about fulfilling criteria. There are the Copenhagen criteria to be fulfilled on the one hand, and those of Maastricht on the other. It should be made clear to all countries that accession to the European Union is not quite the same thing as accession to the Economic and Monetary Union and to the euro zone, and that there are different deadlines. It is clear that there is to be no opting out of the Economic and Monetary Union, and no bargaining during either set of negotiations. Thirdly, we must do our utmost to prepare the European Union for the enlargement process, by 2003, in the spirit of the splendid speech made by President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. Fourthly – and it is very important to me to make this point by way of conclusion – notwithstanding the pacts that are to be fulfilled, the enlargement process is a political process. It is about people’s hopes and fears, opportunities and risks, prejudice and fact. We must accord this political process the historic importance it deserves and enter into discussion with the citizens. We need to politicise the politics of the enlargement process if we are to have the ability to engage in meaningful conversation with the citizens. The enlargement process and the Economic and Monetary Union are not just a matter for the European institutions. I call upon the Member States and all public mandate holders and media at all levels to become more actively involved in this process, because only then will we be able to do justice to public confidence in these initiatives, the objects of which are in the interests of us all.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004471.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are able to celebrate a ten-year anniversary almost exactly to the day. Almost exactly ten years ago to the day, we started discussing which country should in fact be responsible for processing asylum applications. Then the Dublin Convention came into force. Yet, to this day, we have failed to make Dublin truly enforceable, in other words, we have been unable to establish a suitable instrument of control. We have been discussing the fact that we need an instrument of this kind, for years, but so far to no avail, and tomorrow we will have our one and only chance to actually complete Eurodac. I would be delighted if we could. A great many Council Presidents, who have held office in the intervening period, would be delighted too, and everyone has promised that they will make it an absolute priority to try and make Eurodac a reality. This has been a long, drawn-out business, and it concerns an important issue. Why do we need Eurodac and what can it do? Eurodac is a system that will enable us to compare fingerprints and ascertain in an appropriate manner, which country was the first point of contact for the refugee, and, as such, which country is responsible for processing the asylum application. This will also allow for a distribution of the burden amongst the Member States. And, of course, it is also an instrument that will be used to establish if an applicant has submitted asylum applications before. In other words, it is also an instrument for fighting abuse and illegal activity. It is an instrument that we both want, and need, to have at all costs. As I said, it has been a long, drawn-out business and the last time we discussed it in Parliament was December 1999. The vast majority of us were agreed, firstly on the fact that we must get Eurodac up and running, and secondly, on the conditions under which it should be implemented. Above all, we have seen eye to eye with Commissioner Vitorino throughout, and I would like to thank him, because he has moved heaven and earth to enable Eurodac to at last become a reality. Parliament established that the implementing powers would be conferred on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty. However, immediately after we had taken this decision, the Council met in December and, for reasons which we do not understand at all, shelved these joint proposals from Parliament and the Commission, and reserved the most important implementing powers for itself. Consequently, because there had been a substantial amendment, this required reconsultation of Parliament, i.e. we have had to review the situation, albeit only in respect of the relevant points, i.e. Articles 22 and 23 alone. We confined ourselves to these areas in committee, with the exception of Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, who sparked off a new discussion. I do not know what she was hoping to achieve in this way. The object of the exercise was simply to deal with Articles 22 and 23. The new proposal relating to these articles accommodates the Council’s wish to retain sole responsibility for the most important implementing powers, i.e. those regarding the collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints, those for the blocking of the data concerning applicants for asylum, and those for drawing up statistics on asylum applicants. There was unanimous agreement in committee that we should stand by our original proposal and reject that of the Council. Why? For two quite crucial reasons. Firstly, the Council’s move is contrary to Article 202 of the EC Treaty, which establishes the principle that the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down shall be conferred on the Commission. This is particularly important in this case. The Commission could take a far more impartial – i.e. it would be less likely to accommodate specific national interests – and objective line when it comes to implementing this regulation. Therefore we as a Parliament support this. There is also a second reason as to why we oppose the Council’s proposal. It works against Parliament because it excludes us, because there is no longer a comitology procedure, and because we will no longer have access or entitlement to the information we need. This proposal would whittle away Parliament’s rights. For these two highly convincing reasons, we are in favour of the proposal submitted by the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino, to the effect that implementing powers should be bestowed on the Commission, and I would urge you all to attend tomorrow’s vote. This will be our opportunity to make Europe a safer place, and to take action against abuse. Let us seize this opportunity and use this chance to at last make Eurodac a reality.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004490.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity.  What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation.  This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004509.txt','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.','Mr President, the support funds allocated by the European Union within the framework of its regional policy are not alms from the rich to help the poor. Nor must they become a permanent financial crutch. They are actually intended to help the poor regions to help themselves; investment in a better future is the name of the game. It is therefore gratifying that the communication from the Commission on the regions in the new economy pursues this very aim and does so more effectively than many of the traditional mainstream Objective 1 to 3 programmes. It is a matter of increasing the competitiveness of the European economy and, as has already been emphasised several times today, of ensuring in particular that appropriate initial support is given to those parts of our regions which do not enjoy the same starting conditions as the metropolitan areas and large conurbations. What is rather less encouraging is the fact that the amount of money to be injected into these measures is very modest indeed. The Markov report rightly calls for an increase in this allocation. By earmarking EUR 400 million for this important purpose we are sending out a very weak signal. I also find it less than satisfactory that there is no provision for direct project funding and that programme-based funding has again emerged as the preferred option. The reason for my disapproval is that it removes yet another link that might enable the people of Europe to identify in some way with Brussels. There is also a danger that politicians will engage once more in the traditional game we call Schwarzer Peter in Austria – you may know it as Old Maid – in which local, regional and national politicians try to claim credit for all the good things and to pass the buck to Brussels whenever something goes wrong. In organisational terms, I believe that it makes good sense to focus special support on a small number of aims. I also believe, however, that the division into three priority areas envisaged in the Commission report is somewhat artificial; like the rapporteur, I am inclined to think that we should include more innovative measures in the domains of energy efficiency, propagation of renewable forms of energy and practical implementation of climate protection measures in our catalogue of eligible activities. I consider it especially important that schools and other educational establishments should be involved with these new forms of technology, and I hope they will find a suitable way to make their voices heard here. On this basis it is generally gratifying that we shall be able to continue good pilot projects. I am pleased to report that we in Styria have already gathered very worthwhile experience in the last couple of years with Risi , an information offensive launched by the new provincial government. One especially good feature of this initiative is that it has enabled women in particular to familiarise themselves with new information technology and its applications. I do not know whether it is a direct consequence of this Risi initiative that three ladies signed the European budget today, but I should be delighted if this Christmas present on which we are deciding today could also continue to benefit women in the future.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004523.txt','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.','Mr President, the Turkey of today is not the accession candidate of tomorrow. We are worlds apart as regards capital punishment, human rights, minority rights, democracy and rule of law. Scarcely less deep are the rifts on important matters such as economic, social and environmental legislation, to name but a few areas. The continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus is no contribution to peace and security in Europe. There is no getting around these facts. Anyone who says otherwise is, in the best analysis, hypocritical. No trust is to be gained by means of hypocritical set phrases, either in Turkey as our partner, or with our citizens at home. Therefore, we cannot say yes to substantial passages in the compromise resolution before us. If the relevant sections are not deleted from the text then we shall reject the whole resolution. Turkey’s membership of the European Union is not really an important contribution to the future development of the Union. To put it correctly, we are making a contribution to greater clarity in Turkey and on behalf of Turkey. At the same time we retain our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens. In order to make further progress along the long road which Europe and Turkey must travel to become closer, we urgently need credibility. In this sense, we can support everything that has been mentioned many times today. This includes, for example, the requirement to take the European Union’s financial commitments towards Turkey under the financial protocol seriously and not just verbally, but also to make the necessary funds available. In so doing we will be showing both our own citizens, and also Turkey and the citizens of Turkey, that we take invitations and declarations of belief seriously. We do wish to be partners in future! This is however conditional upon our not proceeding to the second step before taking the first, as one may already have supposed on many occasions today.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004555.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'100459.txt','Madam President, I deeply regret the fact that I must now recommend to my group that it reject my own report in the final vote, because I, like my group, really do not think that it is fair for a national problem to be brought before the European Parliament. (Applause)','Madam President, I deeply regret the fact that I must now recommend to my group that it reject my own report in the final vote, because I, like my group, really do not think that it is fair for a national problem to be brought before the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004595.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say about today\'s report is this. One: the goal of the Lisbon strategy is to transform the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, an economy capable of bringing about permanent economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Two: in order to do this, we need an economic, employment, education, research policy and social policy strategy developed jointly by the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Three: Europe is moving from a market economy towards a social market economy and is in the process of taking the next step and making the eco-social market economy the order of the day for the twenty-first century. As someone so nicely put it, the twenty-first century will be the century of Europe but only, I would add, if we want it to be. Four: assuming we really mean it, the Lisbon strategy and an eco-social market economy will allow us, at long last, to get past the received wisdom of capital versus labour, social policy versus economic policy, public versus private sector, Europe versus the Member States. Five: it would all be quite simple if we could agree on a few basic principles: that the economy creates labour, that everything labour creates is social and that social cohesion and environmental protection are mutually supportive for the purpose of sustainability. This all depends primarily on human rather than state resources, not on equality for all, but on competitive ideas that strengthen the continent of Europe as a whole. Six: we should therefore emphasise that economic policy has not been communitised and lies primarily within the sphere of competence of the Member States and that, under Article 99, economic policy must be regarded, and coordinated by the Member States, as a matter of common interest. Seven: we therefore welcome, by way of conclusion, the overall approach of the Commission communication on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy coordination cycles. We need this coordination in order to achieve common objectives despite differing jurisdictions. But this coordination depends on the Member States’ doing their bit, on their passing fast, clear information to the Commission, on defining individual responsibilities within the overall concept – because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and on the euro zone becoming more aware of its responsibility within Europe. We make a huge point of this in paragraph 18 of the report by calling for the role of the social partners in implementing the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, in other words the European social partnership, to be strengthened. We therefore call for a tripartite social summit to be set up, with the participation of the European Parliament. We have no time for legal wrangling between institutions; we need to foster this social dialogue jointly and involve organisations of social partners. Which is precisely why we are demanding more rights in fora and in this process, by which we mean more involvement and more right of involvement on the part of the European Parliament. We stress in point 8 of the report that anyone who wants to see this democratic involvement must be concerned that the new timetable for the guidelines package gives the European Parliament even less time than before to agree on its position. We welcome the fact that this process has been streamlined. We welcome the fact that the focus is on implementation. We welcome specific timing arrangements and we welcome the fact that a strategic, medium-term policy concept is being strengthened. If we ensure that life is breathed into this communication, then we shall be one step closer to the Lisbon strategy. (Applause)'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004601.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.'),(2.703062659569171,2.703062659569171,1000,'Fact',67,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Factors_of_production',1,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Factory',4,1,'1001226.txt','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Factory',4,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Factory',4,1,'1004529.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Factory',4,1,'1004557.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.','Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Factor_VIII',1,1,'1004186.txt','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.','Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world\'s haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fair_trade',1,1,'1001200.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Faith',4,1,'1001131.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Faith',4,1,'1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Faith',4,1,'100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Faith',4,1,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fakhr_al-Mulk_Radwan',1,1,'1004246.txt','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.','Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the Radwan report is particularly important, because it cannot be read in isolation from the next item about the euro information campaign. I am glad that 11 of my 12 amendments were accepted in committee. I had three principal aims in mind with those amendments. Firstly, to enhance and underscore the independence of the European Central Bank. To my mind, this independence also implies freedom from instructions, and this is justified because the ECB has a clear remit, which is to maintain price stability. My second aim is to call on the ECB, through this House, to continue to pursue its stability policy so as to ward off the increasing risk of inflation. My third aim is to give a signal to all the applicant countries that membership of EMU is conditional not on political concessions, but on meeting the convergence criteria. So this report is also important as regards the information campaign, as I have already said, because the media’s overemphasis on the euro’s external value, which has a psychological impact on public confidence in the single currency, needs to be countered to a greater extent by the demonstrable success of economic and monetary union, to which everyone must give greater prominence. We must not allow information on the technical changeover to be overshadowed by information about the political objectives and the successes achieved so far. By way of conclusion, I would therefore like to say that the euro, as this report demonstrates, is a project for growth and employment, for a successful single market and for enhancing Europe’s identity. The euro is a project for price stability and lower inflation rates, for increasing competitiveness and improving public finances, so that we finally put a stop to the process of selling out our future for budget policy reasons.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1001113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'100225.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes; the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully; it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'100271.txt','Thank you, Mr President ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.','Thank you, Mr President; ladies and gentlemen, it may perhaps be said that the earlier debates on Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s reports on the freedom of the media and the exchange of airline passenger information have dramatically demonstrated how important it is to prepare for crises in good time, how difficult it actually can be to defend our Union’s core values when under great pressure and in crisis situations, and how important it is that we should arrive at common principles and procedures. That is why I am glad that the committee accepted by an overwhelming majority the report on respect for, and promotion of, the values on which the Union is based, which I am presenting to you today. In doing this, Members belonging to all the political groups signalled their unanimous determination to defend fundamental values and the Union’s principles of democracy and of the rule of law, values against which international terrorism has declared itself to be targeted, but which can lead to conflict in combating that same terrorism, that are also jeopardised by rising xenophobia, by racism and anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as by political extremism. It makes no sense to close your eyes to it; I believe instead that the times demand that we prepare ourselves for it. I am grateful to the Commission for, by its communication, making an essential contribution to the dialogue between the institutions and to close cooperation between them, which I regard as indispensable where the application of Article 7(1) and (2) is concerned. Although the rapporteur and the committee both had criticisms to make of the Commission communication, I do believe that we have, today, been able to make a number of proposals as to how this position might be further developed. It appeared both to me and to the committee that a higher level of protection than that proposed by the Commission was indispensable, especially in drawing a distinction between a clear risk under Article 7(1) and a serious breach, as was, in our view, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution. Although the acceptance of this by all the institutions and the governments of the Member States does not make it binding in law, it is binding in a political sense, so that decisions taken by reference to Article 7 are discretionary and political, and can therefore be taken only on the basis of it and in full accord with it. The committee was rather disconcerted – as indeed was I myself – by the lack of appreciation of Parliament’s particular responsibilities, which are virtually absent from the Commission communication. According to Article 7(1) Parliament possesses the power of initiative, and both paragraphs accord it the right of approval. What this means is that whether or not the criteria and principles that Parliament chooses for this procedure are actually recognised by other institutions as well will be a quite essential consideration. In my report, I originally proposed an interinstitutional agreement to embed these principles and make them binding on the other institutions, but I wholly accept the committee’s decision to initiate an interinstitutional dialogue on this. The report proposes very definite principles, which I hope are also forward-looking, and these are meant to deal with the qualms and misgivings felt by Members of the House, and also by other committees. The principle of confidence states that it is for our Member States, through their constitutions and institutions, to take active steps to defend the fundamental rights and values of the Union against breaches and the risk thereof; we are also persuaded that they must also be willing and able to do so. This House reiterates and affirms that it has this confidence. Secondly, with regard to the principle of plurality of opinion on the basis of democracy and the rule of law, we reaffirm Parliament’s intention that Article 7 must never be used as an instrument of political opposition. The principle of equality also applies, despite the widespread misgivings about it, and it is intended that it should be embedded, in other words, that Member States should be treated equally, irrespective of their size, their contribution to the Budget, or the length of time they have been Member States. I will conclude by saying that I attach particular importance to the principle of openness. Although neither I nor anyone else here wants things to go that far, this procedure will, if it does so, give rise to major tensions. The debates at the start of this session showed us how very difficult it will be, in a state of emergency, to implement such a procedure with confidence, wisdom, and fairness. It is my belief that, in the event of such a procedure, Parliament would need a great deal of public credibility and so, contrary to what the Commission proposes, it is not a separate procedure that such circumstances require, but the absolute openness of all procedures, which the possibility of sanctions makes all the more necessary. That, Mr President, brings me to my conclusion. Parliament believes that the sanctions issue must indeed be addressed, and that it cannot be the subject of speculation, so that nowhere – whether outside the EU or within it – can there be even the least doubt about this Union’s determination to use all the means available to it in the defence of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004212.txt','We know that business relations can also be a basis for improvements in political relations, and so my question is this: are there any plans to enhance the overall framework for business relations between small- and medium-sized enterprises or family companies between Europe and South Africa, because that could form a basis on which to create, in the poorer regions, prosperity – which is ultimately also the basis for building peace?','We know that business relations can also be a basis for improvements in political relations, and so my question is this: are there any plans to enhance the overall framework for business relations between small- and medium-sized enterprises or family companies between Europe and South Africa, because that could form a basis on which to create, in the poorer regions, prosperity – which is ultimately also the basis for building peace?'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004247.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004287.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!','Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, chèr ami Paasilinna, I am delighted to be discussing the important issue of the pleasure of auctions versus the frustration of taxation. It is a pleasure to achieve high returns but frustrating when one knows that the sale proceeds in fact represent a voluntary form of early taxation. I believe we should learn from the auctions in Great Britain in this respect. The people who applied for these licences actually missed a nought off in their calculations. They had to pay over ten times the anticipated amount for the licences. I believe that will have a distorting effect on competition in the long run, because other companies that only have to face a ‘beauty contest’ can now pursue a considerably more aggressive price policy of course, and will ultimately be able to take over illiquid telecommunications firms. We therefore need to examine the opportunities and risks associated with the various forms of allocation without delay.  I believe it is for the Commission to perform the important task of analysing the auction results and the effects thereof, and make a real point of asking those who buy licences at auction whether they are aware of the risks that the legislature still has on the table. It is not known how the legislature will support the universal service in the future. Our Group is in fact against this for the mobile phone sector. All the same, it is not known what is in the pipeline, for example, in connection with number portability or data protection. I could list a whole host of things that the legislature could still come up with and that would present a considerable risk to auctions. I feel that one should, of course, consider stock market prices as well. If a company in Spain takes part in a ‘beauty contest’ without serious intent, and pays very little for a licence, then of course this company’s shares will rise accordingly on the stock exchange. This means increased liquidity and market imbalances. Companies that pay dearly for licences, on the other hand, and do not have this opportunity, may very quickly go into a tailspin on the stock exchange. Therefore, if auctions are here to stay, we must call for a regulatory framework to be put in place. One idea would be to earmark the revenue from these auctions for boosting investment in education and training. One could promote research and development investment, concentrating on start-up companies, or small and family businesses, particularly those involved in the development of telecommunications, Internet and multimedia programmes. Finally, we could, of course, promote the infrastructure needed to bring on competitive cabling, networks and hardware development too. Just transferring the proceeds to the national budgets, however, does not seem to me to be enough!'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004293.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.','Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO\'s rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004313.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.','Mr President, Commissioner, the report – by which I mean not the draft report, but the report that has emerged from the Committee into the plenary session – shows real evidence of a firm grip on reality. It takes into account the lessons we have to learn from 11 September, and also the guidelines on immigrant workers that we passed on a very broad basis in plenary session. I therefore also welcome the conclusion that it comes to, namely the checks before long-term resident status is granted, such as the requirement for legal residence over a period of five years and checks being made as to whether the person in question has sufficient funds available for himself and for the family that can expect him to provide for them, or the requirement that he has a job and has social and retirement insurance. I also, in view of what happened on 11 September, welcome the introduction of security checks. We have no need of criminals, or of people who represent a danger to the European Union\'s public safety and order. I also appreciate the fact that the Member States will be enabled to introduce checks on other criteria such as language skills, housing accommodation and more along similar lines. Again, in relation to criminal offences, the increased scope for deportation is also a positive sign. I welcome these regulations because they are in step with the granting of an ordered sequence of privileges along the lines of: access to employment, education, social security and integration, and this is also to be embraced. We in the European People\'s Party declare our support for the controlled acceptance of third-country nationals, so that integration may actually be facilitated and the EU\'s security and stability may continue to be guaranteed.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004332.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black; the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘ acquis communautaire ’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004357.txt','Mr President, I note with some surprise that I am bringing up the rear, despite having been the first to request the floor in writing. Secondly, I should also like to note that, broadly speaking, my Group supports the Haarder report and expressly highlights the fact that there was excellent cooperation with the rapporteur. At last we have before us a report which duly deals with the subject, the stated period and enforceable rights. Hence our support in principle. We voted against it, however, because two points were accepted by the majority of the House I refer to points 53 and 54, which tackle the issue of the family and the excessive support or special support for all alternative types of partnership. We in the European People’s Party see the family as a value per se, as the cornerstone of society, if you like, as the heart of society, and cannot accept that alternative life styles should be specially fostered and set above the family, which we see as the nucleus of our society. However, with these points and the majority decision by Parliament, we now have a situation in points 53 and 54 in which alternative lifestyles enjoy special favour and are placed above the family, as a result of which we find it impossible to vote for the report as a whole. (Applause)','Mr President, I note with some surprise that I am bringing up the rear, despite having been the first to request the floor in writing. Secondly, I should also like to note that, broadly speaking, my Group supports the Haarder report and expressly highlights the fact that there was excellent cooperation with the rapporteur. At last we have before us a report which duly deals with the subject, the stated period and enforceable rights. Hence our support in principle. We voted against it, however, because two points were accepted by the majority of the House; I refer to points 53 and 54, which tackle the issue of the family and the excessive support or special support for all alternative types of partnership. We in the European People’s Party see the family as a value per se, as the cornerstone of society, if you like, as the heart of society, and cannot accept that alternative life styles should be specially fostered and set above the family, which we see as the nucleus of our society. However, with these points and the majority decision by Parliament, we now have a situation in points 53 and 54 in which alternative lifestyles enjoy special favour and are placed above the family, as a result of which we find it impossible to vote for the report as a whole. (Applause)'),(7.223836825953616,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,2,'1004363.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am speaking here in a dual capacity, as rapporteur for Malta and as chairman of the joint parliamentary committee for Poland, and I am therefore grateful that you have allowed me extra speaking time. Because of its geopolitical position as the last outpost of Europe, at the crossroads with the Middle East and North Africa, the importance of Malta goes far beyond its geographical size and its small population. The European Parliament and the European Council of Vienna, with Wolfgang Schüssel, who at the time was still serving as Austria’s foreign secretary, in the Council presidency, therefore welcomed Malta’s decision to reactivate its accession application, which had been frozen since 1996. It was only logical for the European Council in Helsinki in December last year to give the green light for the resumption of accession negotiations with Malta when the accession negotiations were extended. There is no doubt that Malta fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria and, as a functioning market economy, should be able to cope with competitive pressure within the Union by pursuing the steps under way to restructure its industry and to reduce the government deficit. Malta also has stable, working, democratic institutions. The national action plan to implement the acquis is creating the conditions needed to restructure and modernise the economy of this island republic. As rapporteur, I am naturally aware of the fact that Malta has the same problems adjusting to the EU as other candidate countries, except that they are much fewer in number and therefore easier for the EU to cope with. This small island has, of course, been used to protecting its economy from too much competition through protectionist measures and tariffs for a long time and the break up of these structures is a cause of concern to small retailers and family businesses. It is also a matter of concern to the shipyard and dry-dock sector which has been heavily subsidised for a long time, thereby contributing to the public-sector deficit. But reforms are under way here which will help this sector to become economically viable and to survive. Malta is also well on the way to opening up its monopoly of electronic media to the free market. One problem is, without doubt, that it has a great deal of catching up to do in the area of environmental policy and waste disposal, but these problems can be overcome, given time. Financial support under the pre-accession strategy is fundamental for Malta, as is the knowledge that financial aid for Malta should comply with the rules which apply to the other candidate countries. Malta’s main problem is still that the accession process is judged differently by the government and by the opposition, while the European Union just wants to be sure that the accession process progresses steadily. What is needed, therefore, is comprehensive information for the public on the political, economic and social aspects of Malta’s accession to the European Union, together with comprehensive dialogue with all sections of the population and relevant political groups and parties, in order to ensure that Malta’s accession becomes a matter of national concern and in order to pave a straight path for Malta to join the EU. Allow me now to jump across to Poland, which is without doubt a key country in the enlargement process, not just because it is the most expansive of all the central European economies but because of its size and geopolitical position. Poland has always been the first victim of the European conflicts which, until just recently, were played out on its territory. It is not its fault that it has taken so long to find its way to the European Union. With all the problems inherent in Poland’s adjustment to the European Union, we must not forget the historical dimension in the case of this country. It cannot be measured solely in numbers like a cost-benefit analysis. It makes sense, especially on the anniversary of German reunification, to remember that it was the Polish Solidarnosc movement which set the downfall of the Soviet superpower in motion 20 years ago and recently enabled Germany to unify. Two factors must be borne in mind: first the EU must complete its internal reforms, so that it is ready to accept new members from 2003 onwards, and the Polish public must be given comprehensive information on the advantages and opportunities of accession. The more difficult negotiations between Poland and the EU may now become, the more we, as representatives of the European Parliament, must do everything to make the process of integrating Poland credible. We are not talking about an exact annual figure. But there should be no doubt about the will of the European Union to extend its zone of peace and stability to central Europe and Poland. The tendency in the report on Poland, encouraging its politicians to speed up the harmonisation of its legislation with the EU and implement the acquis, and the successful conclusion of the agreement on the liberalisation of Polish agricultural trade a few days ago are positive signals here. Despite all the difficulties, there is one thing we should not forget: Poland’s accession should be completed with care but as quickly as possible, in the interests of the reunification of Europe.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004364.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe\'s roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people\'s awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004409.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you whether the Green Paper also takes account of the fact that eighteen million businesses in the European Union have fewer than 250 employees. This accounts for two-thirds of all employees and affects more than 60 million workers. Most of these enterprises are family businesses. Many businesses also have a life cycle. We are always talking about start-ups , but we should also think of those companies that close for reasons of age or various other reasons. In my opinion, attention should be paid to ensuring that livelihoods are not put at risk, because this would, of course, be an enormous strain on the workers in these businesses, but also for the entrepreneurs who want to cease trading. How will the Green Paper deal with these issues?'),(7.223836825953616,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,2,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004500.txt','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?','Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004614.txt','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.','Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004616.txt','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?','Madam President, I would first like to thank the Commission\'s very professional negotiating team, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Lamy, because they really did everything in their power to make the conference a success. Perhaps in future we ought to bring in a rule that says anyone who walks out of the negotiations has given their approval. We were expecting tough, rigorous negotiation, but we lost our partners along the way. In other words, the poor will remain poor and the rich will remain rich. That is not something for us to be happy about. Mrs Lucas said earlier that poorer countries should have the right to promote their own national industries. Does she mean by that monopolistic companies owned by a handful of ministers who are worried that competition rules and investment protection agreements will put their own assets at risk? It might be helpful here to involve national members of parliament, opposition members, somewhat more closely, so that there can be a genuine debate in the least developed countries as well about who is to be wealthy and who is to live in total poverty. A few wealthy individuals compared with millions living in hunger. We should therefore make every effort to encourage small- and medium-sized enterprises, family companies, in these countries, to stimulate competition, and to promote well-being – and I do not mean just for a handful of people who benefit from the existence of monopolies. That is why I believe that the Parliamentary Conference is so important, and we as Europeans should be in the vanguard here, to ensure that there is an objective and transparent debate not only here in Europe, but also and above all in the world\'s poorest countries. They urgently need a debate of that kind. There is one more issue I would like to focus on: what will happen when the ‘‘peace clause’’ expires? Will we be faced with another war, a world trade war in which the poor will become even poorer?'),(3.611918412976808,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,1,'1004627.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned.  In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be.  (Applause)'),(7.223836825953616,3.611918412976808,1000,'Family',27,2,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Family_reunification',1,1,'1004597.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with I would like to say, Mr Duquesne, that I regard it as very positive that you are taking part in this debate yourself as the Minister for the Interior and are not being represented by your Minister for European Affairs. We have noted that you have a good grasp of the issue and are interested in really achieving something here. If this can be done in conjunction with the Commission and Parliament, then we can look forward to some real progress. The European Union is now clearly taking things seriously and is for the first time making a genuine attempt at a systematic approach toward migration policy. We have accordingly clearly established that there are three groups of migrants requiring different measures and different legal arrangements, and that there are also issues which cut across the three groups. Let us look at the three groups first. We have economic migrants, and my report addresses how they are received in the individual Member States, depending on the facilities and needs of those Member States. Then we have asylum-seekers, who are recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. I firmly believe that the Geneva Convention should on no account be watered down or departed from, either by extending or by diluting the grounds for granting refugee status. What we need are swift and safe decisions for refugees and European minimum standards for the procedures involved. The third group covers war refugees, that is refugees who come to us temporarily and need a different kind of help again. Issues which cut across the three groups include family reunification and combating trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration. That means that we have a complicated system before us. My report is concerned exclusively with immigration on economic grounds and was adopted with six votes against, so that it achieved a fairly broad consensus. I would like to express my sincere thanks for the extremely constructive and positive cooperation between the wide variety of political groups in this House, which made it possible to create a broad basis for a new approach to immigration into the European Union on economic grounds. What is at stake here is controlling the immigration of workers and maintaining social, economic and political stability in the European Union. However, in view of the events of 11 September, we also need increased vigilance when it comes to the hospitality, aid and freedoms offered by the Union, to make sure that these are not abused by individual elements to breach the security of Europe\'s citizens or of the world as a whole. It should also be clear to us, as I stated at the beginning of my report, that we cannot counter demographic trends by means of immigration alone, but that the only really good and meaningful approach is, of course, an enhanced education policy and family policy. It must also be clear that we have to give the integration of third country nationals living here legally higher priority than new immigration. What are the core issues in my report? It is evident that when it comes to immigration the European Union can only take on certain tasks and that a great deal must remain a matter for the Member States. Another issue that must remain in the hands of the Member States is what workers and how many workers should be given residence permits and work permits for a particular Member State, depending on that State\'s needs and facilities. It is also evident that if integration is to be successful, factors such as the availability of suitable work and housing must be taken into account. Another important issue for the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is what we expect of immigrants, by which I mean their willingness to integrate and to recognise the Community of values. Conversely, there should also be an obligation on the Member States to provide an appropriate level of support for integration. At EU level it is a question of determining conditions for the entry and residence of these migrants and drawing up a coherent system for granting visas, of regulating the ability of third country nationals to move between Member States and the introduction of measures to counter trafficking in and smuggling of human beings and illegal immigration, and also cooperation and information campaigns in and with the countries of origin. The committee in principle welcomes all the Commission\'s proposals on the immigration of workers. I hope that the broad consensus that we achieved in committee will be repeated when we vote here in the plenary. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Family_reunion',1,1,'1004594.txt','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, Council representatives, Commissioner, as you will certainly have understood from the applause, we value your work and your efforts to find good, pragmatic solutions and work together with Parliament, as well as the progress which you have chalked up on the scoreboard. I am delighted at the commitment of the Swedish Presidency, even if a great many problems still remain to be resolved. But, that notwithstanding, allow me to draw your attention to three problem areas, parts of which have already been addressed, namely the deficits which we have, secondly, the solutions which we still need, because the proposals seem to bear no relation to reality and, thirdly, the uncoordinated initiatives by Member States. I shall start with the last point. You have my support here, Commissioner. You feel that we need a new modus operandi here. We spend a great deal of time on parallel initiatives which very often have no legal basis and which we often suspect are nationally motivated rather than concerned with finding European solutions. We need an efficient mechanism for pushing ahead with the positive aspects here. The second point is that there has been a dramatic increase in both drug abuse in the European Union and in drug production, especially the production of synthetic drugs, in the European Union. In the meantime, there are now over 5 million young people taking synthetic drugs. The European Union has become the biggest producer and exporter of synthetic drugs in the world. And if we look at the scoreboard, then we can see that very little action has been taken. An initiative plan was submitted in 2000, but no further action was taken. I would ask for this to be made a new focal point. Finally, I should like to mention one more thing. Where there is no bearing on reality, as in the case of family reunion ... (The President cut the speaker off)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Family_values',1,1,'1001122.txt','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies; but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Famine',5,1,'1004169.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Olsson most warmly for taking upon himself the very difficult task of drafting this report. Ever since the first case of BSE occurred, Parliament has always very closely observed and discussed the steps taken at both European and national level to deal with the crisis. It is important for us, the farmers right across Europe, that all possible steps should be taken to avoid future food crises. The precautionary principle, already mentioned by many of my fellow Members, must be adhered to, and the latest medical findings must be taken into account. One difficulty that has become apparent is that of the marked divergences between Member States in the way they implement EU regulations and the partial absence of details as to how and to what extent Community legislation is being transposed. I am in good company when I say that, above all, though, much firmer measures must be taken in respect of non-compliance, including the removal of hazardous material. I do not believe that it is sensible to provide for the reduction to 24 months of the age at which tests are carried out. I think this would give rise to unjustifiable costs. Tests should continue to be carried out at 30 months in order to obtain secure results. I therefore also support those amendments that provide for this. As I have already said, the greatest protection is offered by proper slaughtering and removal of hazardous material. Let me make another observation. I really would like to make the point that the common agricultural policy surely already does justice to the objective of food safety even now. In my opinion, there is no absolute link between the continuing handling of BSE and the treatment of food leftovers. The BSE crisis was, as we know, triggered by the production of animal meal under improper conditions and the equally improper feeding of it to ruminants. The problems of recycling should be dealt with in another report. A second consideration to which we should give attention is that the subject of animals, which are actually omnivorous, should be dealt with elsewhere, in a report of its own and not in this report, which is actually only on the ongoing handling of BSE in ruminants.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Famine',5,1,'1004256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Famine',5,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Famine',5,1,'1004497.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the honourable Members whose hard work and constructive attitudes have brought us to this point. It is unquestionable that the prevention of epizootic diseases which lead to food crises is of great importance, not only to the future of European farming but also to the entire population of Europe. The crucial task now is to find a suitable means of meeting the needs of a multifunctional agricultural system as well as those of consumers. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I therefore call for the preservation of the tried and tested national systems for the disposal and recycling of organic waste. The collection and use of biogenetic waste for the purposes of composting or for use in a biogas plant are highly commendable from an environmental point of view and must therefore remain possible in future. In Austria in particular we have found these processes extremely useful. I should also like to address the extremely controversial issue of recycled catering waste. The Austrian example shows that application of the highest possible standards of hygiene, coupled with official monitoring, banishes any concerns regarding a possible risk of epizootic disease. This has been confirmed once again in the recent past. I would therefore regard a general ban on the use of pigswill for animal feed as an unduly draconian measure. In addition, we must not forget the investments that have been made in the municipal collection of organic waste and in the officially licensed decoction facilities, investments made in the belief that the future lies in an exemplary system of environmental protection. In recent years, 250 new decoction facilities have been built in Austria. I shall therefore lend my support to all compromise amendments that guarantee the continued existence of proven monitored systems for the recycling of organic waste. I consider it very important that we formulate our decisions on this sensitive subject in such a way that the general public can follow our reasoning. The public would certainly not want to see the prohibition of an exemplary practice. (Applause)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Famine',5,1,'1004548.txt','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.','Mr President, for the public, health and healthy food are the top priority. But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy? Just looking certainly is not enough. An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny, beautifully round apple. The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety, traceability and hygiene. For me, this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms, because it is always in the big, industrialised concerns, which really have very little in common with farms, that scandals occur. Nevertheless, small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs. One thing is certain: the controls have not worked. You can, of course, turn things round however you want and say, yes, we just need even stricter rules. But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules, how are we going to cope with even stricter ones? It will not help at all. Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it. As I see it, controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission. You cannot just turn your back on this problem. Cheap food may be good for winning the next election, but it is not good for public health, and I think the public knows that too. I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies. But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this. To be quite specific, very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation. There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers, it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Far-left_politics',1,1,'100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Far-right_politics',4,1,'1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Far-right_politics',4,1,'100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Far-right_politics',4,1,'1004537.txt','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.','Madam President, I too should like to ask in what capacity you made this statement. Secondly, in speaking of subsidiarity, I meant points in the report which referred to areas of intervention in the rights of nation states which, according to the Treaty, clearly come within the remit of those states. My third comment, if you will allow, is addressed to you, Mr da Costa: what happens in one country of the European Union is of interest to the other countries, that is perfectly obvious. That is not least precisely why we are members of this European Union and it is to be commended that we obtain information and evince an interest. But evincing an interest also means, in my view, obtaining objective information about a country and levying criticism where criticism is due and then taking measures when transgressions have taken place and not preventatively or, where possible, on the grounds of political persuasion. Minister, I should like to call on you on behalf of the Austrian delegation to obtain this information, which neither you nor many or, presumably all of the 14, have, in situ . If you want to know who elected this party which forms part of the coalition, namely the Freedom Party, then the answer is that 50% of the workers who used to vote for Socialism have now voted for this party and that half the youth of Austria voted for this party. It was not right-wing extremists, although, of course, we do unfortunately have them in Austria, perhaps in the order of 3 to 5%, just as other countries do. The motives here were different, however, and voters simply overwhelmingly voted the old government and Socialism out in favour of an alternative. If you wish to pass value judgements here, please ensure that you are in possession of all the facts first and then levy criticism where it is really due and not on the basis of supposition or suspicion.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Far-right_politics',4,1,'1004633.txt','Mr President, I abstained in the vote on the request to refer back the Duhamel report, by way of protest. I am of course a fierce opponent of the extreme right here in Parliament. But I am deeply disturbed, Mr President, that it is possible here in this Chamber for a Member of the left – I have forgotten now who it was – to call elected Members of this House polluters of this Chamber, without you calling that Member to order. We should not accept language like that, because it is exactly the kind of language used by the extreme right in power in my home country when I was not yet born or was just a small child. We should not accept this, whoever uses such language, whether it comes from the extreme right or the extreme left.','Mr President, I abstained in the vote on the request to refer back the Duhamel report, by way of protest. I am of course a fierce opponent of the extreme right here in Parliament. But I am deeply disturbed, Mr President, that it is possible here in this Chamber for a Member of the left – I have forgotten now who it was – to call elected Members of this House \"polluters\" of this Chamber, without you calling that Member to order. We should not accept language like that, because it is exactly the kind of language used by the extreme right in power in my home country when I was not yet born or was just a small child. We should not accept this, whoever uses such language, whether it comes from the extreme right or the extreme left.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Farce',2,1,'1004361.txt','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.','Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years\' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l\'autrichienne , Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Farce',2,1,'1004586.txt','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.','Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I should like to start with a quote: “The Commission will continue to work towards establishing a European Charter of Fundamental Rights and draw up proposals to bring about an ambitious programme. The Commission is planning in particular to develop a genuine European policy on asylum and immigration. It wishes to boost judicial assistance and cooperation and to develop an effective approach to the fight against all forms of crime”. That is the entire programme for the next five years on the question of internal security, freedom, citizens’ rights and judicial cooperation. A paper this short is a farce. A farce because we know and appreciate the work of Commissioner Vitorino and what we have here on paper is a blatant contradiction to how things actually stand. A paper such as this is no basis for a scoreboard. It has been extolled and celebrated as a huge achievement and I am all for it; we need a basis for a scoreboard. We here in Parliament want to hold a serious discussion about the future development in this policy area on the basis of a programme. What we are looking for are minimum standards in asylum procedures so that refugees can be given help quickly, and those who are not fleeing know where they stand. We want instruments to prevent abuse. We want to develop a Community immigration policy which takes account of the Member States’ capacity to absorb immigrants and we need to extend the operational powers of EUROPOL, for example, so that specific steps can be taken to combat organised crime. We debate these issues intensively and seriously and we should be entitled to expect likewise from the Commission, even where it is merely submitting a paper.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Farmer',4,1,'100417.txt','It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?','It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement; rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Farmer',4,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Farmer',4,1,'1004628.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Farmer',4,1,'100463.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me too start by thanking Mr Garot for his own-initiative report. Income policy in the agricultural sector has a direct influence on the attractiveness of the farming life, and consequently on the continuation of agricultural production; connected with the effect it has on rural development. Europe’s farmers enjoy very widely differing levels of income. In recent years, agriculture has had to cope with profound structural change, and that is not yet over. Between 1995 and 2002 alone, the number of farms in the EU has decreased by an average of 15.7%. European farmer’s income consists in part of direct payments and not merely of production yield; moreover, the fall in prices for basic agricultural produce bears no relation to the way the prices paid by consumers for food have changed. In future, too, production costs will increase as a result of the greater demands made of agriculture, while farmers’ compensation payments will not be increased correspondingly. What compensation payments must do is to guarantee that society’s needs are met: the desire for healthy and safe food and for an environment fit to live in. Compensation payments for agriculture are justified insofar as they reward its multifunctional services to society, above all – as Mr Santini said – in the mountainous, less-favoured, and peripheral regions of the EU. The European Union’s agriculture will also need a strong dose of entrepreneurship and an underlying production role. Farmers’ understanding of their own occupational role and their social status increasingly depend on to what extent the agricultural policy promotes farming enterprise. It is at this that the individual instruments must be targeted, but the common agricultural policy must not permit the first pillar to be played against the second. Nor may we disregard the requirement that these agricultural policy instruments be provided over a specified period, thus making it possible to plan and act within a longer timeframe. There is no getting away from the Financial Perspective as a means of giving our farmers, to some extent, the certainty they need in order to plan ahead, which agriculture and rural areas need.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Far_and_Away',1,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Far_Cry',1,1,'100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Far_Cry_(Rush_song)',1,1,'1004420.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.','Mr President, Commissioner, fellow members, when you receive a lot of letters from people you do not know, it may be for one of two reasons. Either you are very famous or your correspondents feel very strongly about the matter on which they write. Members of the European Parliament are not very famous. It must therefore be the matter at issue which has triggered the correspondence. We have all received a lot of letters, documents and requests for interviews over the last few days, nearly all from representatives of national railways and nearly all warning us, unisono against the compulsory separation of management and infrastructure called for in the proposals by the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski. Mr Swoboda has also addressed this issue, although his argument was that we need to liberalise, but only one step at a time. Georg Jarzembowski submits that our systems in the past, with quasi-monopolistic national carriers, have not allowed optimum use to be made of the system. Who can argue with that? The figures speak for themselves. Our present railway system is a far cry from what we desperately need in Europe, namely an efficient system which is also an acceptable system. Every example in related sectors confirms the argument. One step at a time gets you nowhere. Telecommunications traffic has demonstrated that, the electricity sector and numerous other sectors besides have demonstrated that. And we expect the same to happen with the railways. The main purpose of the railways is to serve their users and hence to serve a more efficient, improved European transport system. That is what we want, that is what we need and that is what we shall vote for.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Fascism',5,1,'1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.'),(15.894952099644108,5.298317366548036,1000,'Fascism',5,3,'100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Fascism',5,1,'100139.txt','Mr President, Mr Schulz called me a racist. Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to respond. He described himself as a representative of a country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism. I would never use such an expression, even though many members of my family were murdered during the Holocaust. I would ask Mr Schulz, as a representative of the country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism – his own words – to cite just one, just one, racist comment that I have made in the course of my career in politics. If he is unable to come up with one, then would he please apologise, not for criticising, but for vilifying my character.','Mr President, Mr Schulz called me a racist. Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to respond. He described himself as a representative of a country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism. I would never use such an expression, even though many members of my family were murdered during the Holocaust. I would ask Mr Schulz, as a representative of the country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism – his own words – to cite just one, just one, racist comment that I have made in the course of my career in politics. If he is unable to come up with one, then would he please apologise, not for criticising, but for vilifying my character.'),(10.596634733096073,5.298317366548036,1000,'Fascism',5,2,'100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)'),(5.298317366548036,5.298317366548036,1000,'Fascism',5,1,'1004166.txt','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?','Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fathom',1,1,'1004421.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the crises – which range from North Korea to the Middle East and the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq – distract our attention from Afghanistan. I therefore welcome the way in which the new Greek Presidency has made Afghanistan a priority issue or has the desire to do so. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime and the installation of Hamid Karzai as the country\'s president, the battle for a stable Afghanistan is far from being won. It is disconcerting to learn that Taliban warriors are again organising themselves, under the warlord Hekmatyar, with the intention of trampling the delicate bloom of constitutional democracy underfoot once more. It is a cause for concern that the authority of the interim Karzai government extends no further than Kabul\'s outer perimeter, and the news of resumed opium cultivation is disturbing. This is, in essence, a race against time, but, amid all our efforts, we must not abandon our support for the political timetable, according to which general elections will eventually be held in mid-2004. The balance sheet of events to date can be compared to the well-known glass of water, which is either half full or half empty. At the end of the day, we have to get used to the idea of having to provide, in the longer term, both financial and political support if democratic institutions are to have a chance of being established in this country, ravaged as it has been by war and civil strife that has lasted for decades. This will of course also require the extension of the mandate of ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force. I find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the announcement that this extension would run only until 2003, but we can welcome the way in which Germany and the Netherlands have declared their willingness to assume command of this force. What this indicates in general terms is that it is only with much hesitation that Europeans will commit themselves to long-term involvement, and do so in small stages. Even the many conferences in Washington, Kabul, Bonn and Oslo sometimes tend to give the impression of being sedatives, rather than expressions of an energetic policy aimed at stiffening the resolve  to establish democracy in this country. The demand that the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force be extended, along with the area under that mandate, is a justified one. To date, alas, it has not borne much relation to reality. In addition, all the countries bordering on Afghanistan need to cooperate in preventing the Al-Qaida network from regaining strength in the area. A certain amount has been done about this. Nor should we entirely abandon the idea of a real reconstruction agency along the lines of that in Kosovo. Sending another delegation of this Parliament to Afghanistan early next year is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, but it will be meaningful only if policy reflects the insights gained from it. That policy must include, as a priority, political help with the passing on of administrative know-how. What is this about, first and foremost? This is about keeping civil and military power separate from each other, it is about preventing reactionary fundamentalist Islamic tendencies in the justice system, and, above all, this is about preventing humanitarian crises.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fatigue_(medical)',1,1,'100451.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fault_(geology)',1,1,'1004185.txt','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.','Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fauna',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Faust',1,1,'100458.txt','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)','Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the Heads of State or Government called for greater transparency, simplicity and comprehensibility in the European regulatory system. The Convention has tried to live up to this task, and has, among other things, set up a working group on the simplification of procedures. Today\'s report by Mr Martin again makes it abundantly clear just how urgently necessary it is that this group should exist and that it should produce a result. In 1999, as one of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I experienced first-hand the dilemma into which we were all plunged by the Rules of Procedure – or, as one should perhaps say, the Rules of Disorderly Business. At the time, the conduct of a number of Commissioners was unacceptable, discharge ought really not to have been granted, but, reasonably enough, we neither wanted nor were permitted to make scapegoats of the Commission as a whole. The problems of those days have been resolved by history – or probably, only by the honourable attitude of our present colleague Jacques Santer. It is evident, though, that we have not learned much from this. The system now proposed is no less complex than its predecessor. The present system is just as opaque as that which went before it, and if there were any need of proof of this, it has been provided by the events surrounding the efforts towards a compromise on this proposal. Goethe, that prince among poets, has his Faust say that he is driven mad by thoughts that seem to revolve in his head like a millstone: \' Mir wird von alledem so dumm, als ginge ein Mühlstein mir im Kopf herum \'. I do not believe that we should inflict such headaches on our citizens in Europe – at any rate, not in the long term. All we can do, then, is to take on ourselves the task, here today, tomorrow and the day after, of finding a compromise and, in the Convention on the Future of Europe, to work out a model in accordance with which the public and their representatives understand what the political implications of discharge resolutions are and are meant to be. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Fear',8,1,'1001181.txt','Madam President, I must take this opportunity to inform you that a party of schoolchildren invited by me for this week – tomorrow to be precise – has cancelled the visit. I also heard, however, that mine was not the only group affected, but that around half the invited groups had cancelled their visits this week. The children in question, or their parents, fear that security measures in this House are inadequate and that the children would be in danger if they visited Parliament. Let me request you, then, to supply the public with extensive information about the adequacy of the security arrangements. Should this not be possible, consideration should be given to a general suspension of visits. I myself have also another concern: I would welcome it if those visitors\' quotas that cannot be made use of because visits have been cancelled, could be set aside for future dates rather than be lost, so that these groups that, for understandable reasons, are not visiting Parliament now, may make up for it at a later date.','Madam President, I must take this opportunity to inform you that a party of schoolchildren invited by me for this week – tomorrow to be precise – has cancelled the visit. I also heard, however, that mine was not the only group affected, but that around half the invited groups had cancelled their visits this week. The children in question, or their parents, fear that security measures in this House are inadequate and that the children would be in danger if they visited Parliament. Let me request you, then, to supply the public with extensive information about the adequacy of the security arrangements. Should this not be possible, consideration should be given to a general suspension of visits. I myself have also another concern: I would welcome it if those visitors\' quotas that cannot be made use of because visits have been cancelled, could be set aside for future dates rather than be lost, so that these groups that, for understandable reasons, are not visiting Parliament now, may make up for it at a later date.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Fear',8,1,'1001228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Fear',8,1,'100183.txt','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Fear',8,1,'1004107.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Fear',8,1,'1004108.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Fear',8,1,'1004191.txt','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.','Mr President, the omens have never been good before any Intergovernmental Conference. Unresolved issues have predominated, and the common ground has been narrow. Now, very few days before the ministerial meeting of the present Intergovernmental Conference, the signs are once again unpromising. This time, however, it is paradoxically the prospect of an emerging consensus that is causing us political headaches. As the days go by, it is becoming ever likelier that the agreement the ministers will reach, while not representing the lowest common denominator, will be a rather low common denominator, indeed a very low common denominator. Many of us therefore fear that what Nice will offer in the way of institutional reforms will not really enable the Union to implement a major enlargement process involving the accession of twelve or more new Member States, unless further, more extensive reforms are implemented. I venture to doubt whether consensus will be easier to achieve in the new extended family than it is now. One can but hope. Besides, the overall result of the coming IGC ministerial meeting, another small but unfortunately far from delicate detail is causing me some concern. In the resolution on Nice that we are discussing here, the last clause in point 6 says in essence that Parliament too should have a right of initiative in procedures under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (breaches of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, etc.). In general terms, this would impinge upon the central role of the Commission. The fact that the Commission has the sole right of initiative is an essential element of our Union. Granting the European Parliament a right of initiative in this highly sensitive domain would throw the door wide open to party-political despotism. Do the European Socialists, who tabled this proposal, intend to react to every election in which the Left loses its majority by initiating a campaign of European ostracism against the new government? I advise the House to beware of such a move and ask you to vote against this clause tomorrow.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Fear',8,1,'100434.txt','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.','Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission\'s fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Fear',8,1,'100445.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar control, as is necessary, by Parliament allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol\'s excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union\'s internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol\'s position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol\'s existence and that of the European Union\'s security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fear_mongering',1,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Federalism',3,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Federalism',3,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Federalism',3,1,'1004576.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad we are discussing so many reports together because it brings out so clearly how all the questions raised are interrelated as they impinge upon education policy and our lives. The various aspects of education policy cannot be separated any more than the subjects can be divided into different curricula with each defending his own the strongest. I think this debate shows that very well. I find myself in a pleasant situation today because my country, Austria, leads the field in Europe for schools networking in connection with e -Learning and the new media. Sixty-one percent of schools – that is 3 860 schools – in my country are connected to the Internet, including secondary schools, of which there are about 1 000. One thousand and ninety already have their own Internet sites. All universities are interconnected via the academic computer network and in that way also have access to the TEN 155 European high speed research network. I am pleased about that, but at the same time it is not enough. It is a correct and important trend that we have started, but more needs to be done and I am therefore very pleased that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have started the European School Net , the e-scola initiative. Only last week we saw how computers and the Internet are actually being used in teaching, to improve the quality of teaching and create new oportunities for learning with the objective of using the compiled teaching and learning materials and practical examples in the future and making them more widely available. Commissioner, I thank you for your persistence in this matter. We are on the right road together. The destination is known, but we still have a long way to go. This brings me to a number of points in the debate. Firstly, the concept of subsidiarity. I am an ardent champion of the subsidiarity principle and I come from a country with a very marked degree of federalism. However, I also call on all Member States not to use the principle of subsidiarity as an excuse – as often happens – for failing to take necessary steps towards Europeanisation. For me, subsidiarity in this context means being close to the citizen, serving their essential interests regionally and individually, fulfilling necessary common European tasks, so we can face global challenges and fulfill our responsibility towards the younger generation. Secondly, education, as this example also shows, is not an end in itself, but education from school to lifelong learning to catering for the new stage in life that is old age is the prerequisite for achieving our goal of a knowledge-based economy that is number one in the world. Education policy is therefore the key to the success of economic policy. Education policy is the prerequisite for today’s young people holding their own on tomorrow’s labour market and for our fulfilling our role as Europe in worldwide competition. I should therefore like to say to Mr Korakas, who thinks protests against these objectives are already beginning, that we as politicians must do all we can to tell people that this development is happening and we have to prepare ourselves for it. Three points, therefore, to finish. First, as Mrs Martens wanted to say, it is not only about providing computers. There is also the ethical question: How are we to use what computers make available to us? The ethical question of their benefit is, like their handling, an important task for educational policy. We must also see to it that no new social time bombs are created between those who know how to use them and those who do not. If education fails to take the correct social action, that may become the new class war. I therefore also call for industry to sponsor schools so that all can have the computers they need. The next point is lifelong learning. Let us do our best to see to it that senior citizens are not forgotten when it comes to training, because only by so doing can we attain the European objectives, keep pace with world competition, make enlargement a success and avoid setting off a new social time bomb.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation',1,1,'1004330.txt','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.','Mr President, if the Community wants to take seriously the task of protecting the environment, it cannot and must not limit itself to the mere enactment of protection standards. It must also make it its business to see that the relevant regulations are complied with. If the machinery of mere sanctions is not sufficient, it must be possible to bring the big stick of the criminal law to bear – only, of course, in important and exceptional cases and with due regard for the division of secondary responsibilities, both in matters of environmental protection and – indeed, above all – in matters of criminal law. Thus far, almost all the groups in this House approve this Commission proposal and the amendments to it by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for which we can warmly thank the House\'s rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. Some of us fear that this proposal opens the door too wide, paving the way for uniform European law on the environment and perhaps eventually even for a European environmental agency with powers comparable to those of the FBI. Such concerns are groundless. None of these things is envisaged. The right tool has been chosen – a directive to be transposed by the Member States – and an array of amendments ensures that it does not trespass upon the core area of the competence of the State and of the civil and criminal courts. These are virtually the words used by Amendment No 30, which makes explicit reference to extradition, for example, being envisaged only where there is provision for it in the Member State\'s own legislation. By this modus operandi, we are using the right instruments in pursuit of an important Community objective. The proposals made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy should therefore be approved.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Federal_Council_(Austria)',1,1,'1004148.txt','Mr President, I wanted to thank the Commission and the Council for making it possible for this document to be adopted today, within four months of its submission, and at first reading. I would also like to extend warm greetings to the delegations from the Austrian National Council and Federal Council, who are in the visitors\' gallery.','Mr President, I wanted to thank the Commission and the Council for making it possible for this document to be adopted today, within four months of its submission, and at first reading. I would also like to extend warm greetings to the delegations from the Austrian National Council and Federal Council, who are in the visitors\' gallery.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Federal_Europe',1,1,'1004545.txt','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!','Madam President, where should our travels in Europe take us? To a European federal state with a strong centre and far-reaching competences, or should we carefully develop what has so far been the trademark of European integration and a guarantee of its success, namely a Union of Europe’s peoples and States? To read the text of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, you would almost believe that the European federalists have already won the day: a Commission that does not contain representatives from every Member State, a Parliament in which even the representatives of the medium-sized States no longer carry any weight, and a Council that essentially bases its majorities on 51% of the total population of the Member States. This would be a travesty, even for an ardent European.  The text we adopt tomorrow will, I hope, be a different one, a more balanced text that is geared to continuing teamwork between large and small States, and which continues to respect the distinguishing features of our European peoples and States, and therefore does not make even more demands of the citizens of Europe, who have enough problems with the degree of centralisation in Brussels as it is. My second point is that I am hoping for a change to the Committee’s text. Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen put forward a proposal in recital 29 to modify the procedure for suspending a Member State in the event of serious democratic and human rights violations. Allow me to leave you in no doubt as to how the vast majority of people in my country, Austria that is, feel about such a development. They are already learning, from bitter experience, what it is like when Community law in force is not adhered to, in the name of political correctness. This does nothing to boost confidence in the central tenet of a united Europe. A community of law must uphold its own law.  It is simply not true that the policies adopted towards Austria at present are only bilateral in nature. Anyone still requiring confirmation of this fact need look no further than the speech made today by the President of this House. How else are we to interpret Nicole Fontaine’s statement to the effect that she hopes that Austria will become a full member of the Union again one day? What does that make us now? Therefore let us dispense with hypocritical amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty. Let us abide by the law in force and handle the Austrians as required by the EU Treaty. Inclusion, and not exclusion, is what we need!'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Federal_Reserve_System',3,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Federal_Reserve_System',3,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(11.618285980626055,5.809142990313028,1000,'Federal_Reserve_System',3,2,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Federation',6,1,'1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)'),(10.231991619500164,5.115995809750082,1000,'Federation',6,2,'100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Federation',6,1,'1004138.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy\'s omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don\'t take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy\'s conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today\'s debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Federation',6,1,'1004238.txt','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?','Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Federation',6,1,'1004356.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg; instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'Federation',6,1,'1004549.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, especially our dear friends in the candidate countries who are keenly observing our decision today, I have been involved in the enlargement process ever since I became a Member of the European Parliament. I have helped to shape it in a great variety of capacities – as Chairman of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, now as Chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. Like all of us, I am witnessing an historic process that will change the EU permanently. Never before has there been an enlargement on this scale, with ten new countries of Central, Northern and Southern Europe. Parliament was therefore right to be mindful, even before the Council and Commission were, that Europe should not again be divided and that each candidate country should be considered individually on the basis of the progress each has made. I am pleased that today I, together with the entire Austrian People’s Party delegation, can give our assent to the results of Copenhagen in the Brok report and to all the candidate countries. Let me first, as rapporteur, give my reasons for assenting to Malta’s accession application. This small island state is a country in an exposed geopolitical position, one that has been profoundly marked by European culture and history. Like all the candidate countries, Malta, too, has had to make far-reaching political and economic decisions in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria. That has, however, resulted and is resulting in a modernisation of the economic and social structures of a country that has made and will make the leap from a sheltered island society to a social economy able to face competition in the European internal market. In this, the European Union has shown Malta understanding and generosity with, for example, transitional periods in such sensitive areas as shipyards, second residences, even in the question of its desired tax exemptions and of course also with the possibility of agricultural subsidies. Malta has recognised this opportunity. It was the first country to hold a referendum, with an extraordinary turnout, voting 53% in favour of EU accession. But that referendum is not binding. The Accession Treaty still needs to be ratified in parliament. The forthcoming election on 12 April will decide whether there will be a parliamentary majority in favour of it. As rapporteur, I have always tried to avoid interfering in the country’s internal political decisions. That is still my position and I do not in any way want to anticipate how the Maltese people will vote in this election. Let me just say this much: we in the European Parliament have always supported Malta’s application to join the EU and we welcomed the fact that the application, which had been suspended for two years, was renewed in September 1998 and that the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Malta. It is a unique opportunity for Malta. There will not be a second opportunity of this kind. I very much hope that we will be able to welcome Malta as an EU member on 1 May 2004. The enlargement of the EU to take in the Baltic States also has a Northern and a Central European dimension, however. I am speaking now as an Austrian. Today, our country has the longest external border in the Union and yet we lie at the centre of Europe. Enlargement moves Austria from a position on the edge of the EU to its centre, the centre of an area from which we Austrians in particular can expect economic stimuli, growth and employment. The Austrian People’s Party has always supported the European Union and its enlargement. Today, through the delegation to which I belong, and through the Austrian federal government at the summit in Athens, it will be voting in favour of this enlargement. We are not looking only for economic advantages from this enlargement, however. As Chairman of the EU-Poland and EU-Czech Republic Joint Committees, I have always stressed this. This enlargement is a reunification of Europe. Above all, we are looking for good neighbourly relations with the countries with which we were associated historically for hundreds of years and from which we were separated as a result of two World Wars and the cruel division of Europe in the Cold War. I am not taking it for granted that we will be able to solve all our problems with our neighbours as soon as they have joined, but we shall certainly be able to resolve them better and more easily when they have done so. That is why I am canvassing for assent for all the candidate countries and asking Parliament to give that assent. It will be an important historical act, an act that will also help us to come to terms with the past and to make it easier for our neighbour the Czech Republic to make the gestures we expect of it. I am confident that we can count on such gestures, especially after what Czech Vice-Premier Mareš said to our group yesterday. I am canvassing towards this end on behalf of my delegation and give its assent, in the European Parliament, to the accession applications of the ten candidate countries. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Feels_So_Good_(Atomic_Kitten_album)',1,1,'1004275.txt','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)','Mr Cohn-Bendit, I do not think that the European Parliament has any business intervening to such a huge extent in a country’s domestic politics, in the way that you are doing. I can speak for my party, which championed Austria’s membership of the European Union in the early days. As a political force, we serve to guarantee that Austria will continue to embrace European values. I refuse to allow myself to be ostracised for internal and party political reasons! This does not reflect the truth of the situation but is pure propaganda. I utterly reject this! (Loud, sustained applause from the centre and from the right, protests from the left)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Felipe_González',1,1,'1004120.txt','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word democracy most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.','Madam President, I too must say to Ms González Álvarez that it was the vile Communist regimes which bandied about the word \"democracy\" most frequently, and the worst environmental disasters have occurred in Communist countries – just think of Chernobyl – in other words, in states where there is no grasp of either economics or ecology. Rio was a milestone. Yet here we are today, feeling very depressed because we have nothing to show for it. I ask you this: who else, apart from the European Union, should take the lead role here? Who else has the opportunities, the awareness, and the skills, knowledge and economic scope? Without a strong economy, environmental protection is impossible. Yet Johannesburg will soon be upon us, and we have to face facts: the preparations are way off course. Let me say a few words about this New York preparatory conference, which took place from 25 March to 5 April. I am told that progress was far too slow and there was far too much bureaucracy. We have not even begun negotiating yet. The forthcoming preparatory conference in Indonesia has now been extended, and will now take place from 24 May to 7 June. If we do not make progress this time, Johannesburg will have failed before we get there. Let me mention one issue which is very important to my own country, namely mountains. At the preparatory conferences, Switzerland and Austria have called for a separate mountain chapter containing strong commitments, and this demand was endorsed by the European Union. Yet here too, it was impossible to make progress during the preparations. The countries which we represent here have all signed the Alpine Convention. Yet there is absolutely no movement on ratifying the protocols. If we want to have a strong presence at an international summit and demand measures which will benefit our mountains, we must start by doing our homework in our own countries. I ask you all to urge your governments to ratify the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention as quickly as possible.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Felix_Ermacora',1,1,'1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Female_genital_mutilation',1,1,'1004413.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.','Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that this report has been presented. Every one of us who has read ‘Desert Flower’ by Waris Dirie will always be shocked and appalled by this practice. I am thinking today of the 130 million women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and each year some two million more are affected. I am also thinking of the many young girls who die horrifically as a result. Let me say from the outset that I am strongly in favour of the EU and its Member States adopting a joint position to abolish these practices which are harmful to women\'s sexual and reproductive health. Within the framework of a joint immigration and asylum policy, the Commission and the Council will have to take account of these aspects of female genital mutilation. The same applies to refugee policy. In this context, let me point out – and this is clear, in my view – that asylum will then be granted primarily when political protection is required for reasons of state. Genital mutilation is a grey area, and it is usually carried out by private individuals. This makes it even more difficult to combat the practice. A great deal of persuasion, public information and educational work is required from all of us and a change of attitude is needed in society as a whole. For me, genital mutilation is a human rights violation which I cannot accept under any circumstances or from anyone. A public debate on this issue is needed to raise awareness both in the EU and in the developing countries and spare future generations of women this dreadful mutilation. Above all, we must ensure – and this has been mentioned by previous speakers – that this practice is also outlawed in the Member States, for I know that there is a major grey area here. I ask everyone to work together with a genuine will to stop this practice.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Feminism',2,1,'1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Feminism',2,1,'10015.txt','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Ferry_Aid',1,1,'1004356.txt','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.','Mr President, I just wanted to add to what Mr Pirker has said by pointing out that I voted in favour of point 42 of the Haarder report despite the fact that it contains an error because Austria is named in connection with freedom of movement. The executive committee of the Nationalrat (National Assembly) has passed a resolution unanimously adopting the motion for the executive committee to reach an agreement under paragraph 2 of the Law of 3 April 1919 on the resolution by the Federal government of 26 March 1996 and to consider the declarations of renunciation by Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen as adequate, so that nothing now stands in the way of their being issued with passports which will allow them to enter Austria. I am therefore able to tell the House that both Felix Habsburg-Lothringen and Karl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen have valid passports without any form of restriction. Neither signed the declarations of renunciation required by the constitutional office, because they have distanced themselves from the house of Habsburg; instead they merely entered the following statement on their passport applications: “In order to avoid misunderstandings, let it be noted in this connection that I, the applicant, have not and do not question the republican form of government of Austria nor have I ever considered making any manner of claim to sovereignty”. The call on Austria to take action in relation to freedom of movement is therefore devoid of any substance.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Feud',1,1,'100181.txt','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Feudalism',2,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Feudalism',2,1,'100289.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, somewhere in Paris, in the care of the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a huge display board which, on the day of the Convention’s last meeting, stood at the front of the conference Chamber. All the members of the Convention affixed their signatures to it, thereby declaring their consent to the Convention’s great draft Constitutional Treaty. Yesterday I asked President Giscard d’Estaing to release this board. My proposal is that it should be displayed in front of the next summit of Heads of State or Government, some of whom have completely forgotten that they sent their own personal representatives to take part in that constitutive process and that the signatures of those representatives attest to their having endorsed the result of the Convention’s deliberations. In addition, this might also make the Heads of State or Government remember what the Convention was and what it achieved. At the present time we have two main problems. The first of these is that the Convention cannot defend its own draft and, with the Convention having completed its work, the European parliaments have lost the only place where they could coordinate their efforts and join forces to defend the parliamentary and democratic dimension of the constitutional provisions. Our second main problem, Mr President-in-Office, is that the Convention was public. The Intergovernmental Conference marks a reversion to those clandestine, discreet and conspiratorial gatherings of our imperial potentates, who presume to develop the European constitution in this feudal manner – a constitution which, by its very nature, is a parliamentary matter. It would therefore be good and seemly if governments were to show due respect to parliaments and to the authors of the draft constitution by ensuring that their deliberations are not governed entirely by one single motive. The Convention had aims. Those aims related, quite simply, to democracy, effectiveness and Europe’s place in the world. What has driven the governments to formulate the 320 proposals of which we here have become aware? Only one motive: more power for the national governments. That is their one and only goal. All 320 proposals have but one common denominator: no more social Europe, no more democracy, no more fundamental civil and other rights, no more parliamentarianism, no more efforts to build an effective EU, but only more power for themselves. Whether that upsets the democratic balance, whether it is an affront to republican principles or disenfranchises parliaments, is of no consequence to them. Anyone who is seriously concerned about this trend might recognise a second motive, namely nationalism. The entire Intergovernmental Conference is imbued with a spirit of nationalism that we no longer want to see in Europe, and this mixture of more power for governments and nationalism represents the greatest danger to our continent. I marvel at the gentle patience of the honourable Members of this House. Every four weeks, we submit a petition in the form of a resolution: ‘Most gracious Intergovernmental Conference, we humbly beg that democracy might exist alongside the power of governments; we plead for fundamental rights, including civil rights; we beseech you to let parliamentarianism exist alongside the power of governments’. But we are not even successful supplicants, for they do not listen to us, and nothing changes. Five months! It took 105 people 16 months to develop a constitution for Europe, but it has taken 25 governments only five months to tear it to shreds. Mr President, thank you for your patience. Perhaps you can help in some way to ensure that this board, which will have historic importance one day, is displayed on the wall in front of the Council. Let it serve as a reminder that the future of Europe is at stake. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fields_of_Action',1,1,'1004352.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the war currently raging in Iraq is the USA\'s private war. It has too many repercussions for that, not only on the surrounding region, but also on Europe. This also means that it is otiose to wonder whether it might perhaps have been possible to prevent it. Saddam Hussein himself could certainly have prevented it, if he had kept to at least one of the seventeen resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. It would also have been one of his primary duties to give his people, whom he had decimated with weapons of mass destruction, the chance of a decent existence as human beings by ensuring that the sanctions imposed on his country could be lifted. We can but hope and try to do whatever we can to prevent these innocent people from having to pay a high price for this regime and for the war it has caused. I can also understand why many people take to the streets in a kind of impotent rage, believing as they do that warfare cannot, in the twenty-first century, be a legitimate political tool. I can also sympathise with the Catholic Church and the Pope, whose attempts right up to the last moment to prevent armed conflict were, in the final analysis, motivated by concern for the Christian minority in Iraq, and were, alas, rewarded by no more success. Diplomacy stood not the least chance of success, and all the peacekeeping institutions that arose out of the aftermath of the Second World War – the UN, NATO, the European Union – have sustained damage. For us Europeans, there is just one question left to be answered, and that is whether we still have the desire to influence the course of world history or whether we want to opt out. If we are to stay in, the first thing that will be needed is a reshaping of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the second will be a definition of the fields of action in which the European Union has to assume responsibility in the context of security policy. This should also determine what resources are allocated to enable such a policy to be actually implemented. Any policy must in any case be founded upon the common interests of all, and must enable Europe to be one of the poles in a multipolar world.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fighting_Discrimination',1,1,'1001122.txt','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies; but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Figure_17',1,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Figure_of_speech',1,1,'1004575.txt','Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.','Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Film',1,1,'1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Final_Solution',1,1,'100423.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start with very warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his excellent cooperation. It was clear to me from my first reading of the report that it would need more than one debate in this House, but I do believe that we in this House agree on what the directive is intended to do. Its objective is, quite simply, to give priority to the saving of energy and to its efficient use. I believe that our long debates have led us to a high degree of consensus on the subject. At the very outset, Mr Glante put forward some forty amendments, which formed the basis for excellent discussions. I have to say that he not only handled the technical aspects very well, but also – and this is most important – the human dimension, involving bringing people together and striving for compromises. We ended up with 240 amendments, which, of course, we all worked through together. We eventually succeeded in finding the compromise we sought. What is now before us is very much a consolidated version, one that I think we can all live with, and the fact that it has developed along the right lines is demonstrated by the way the Industry Committee voted. We have, of course, prepared minor amendments for this reading, but I think that the basic principle we hammered out together for sustainability in the area of energy supply will have very far-reaching effects. What was of primary importance for us was finding a harmonised system for the   calculation method. This itself was not the focus of attention, as there were so many different options and possible approaches to it; what was, though, more important to us was finding a basis for the whole of Europe, enabling the harmonised system to be universally applicable, whether in the North/South sphere or elsewhere. We know that there are countries in Europe where it gets very hot, and others that need a lot of heat, some needing cooling down and others needing warming up, so that there are very different interests at play here. At this point, I would like to thank those who are called lobbyists, who have done truly outstanding work, teaching us a great deal about the options available. The final result has been that we have learned a very great deal from the many debates, discussions and evening events, when we often stayed for a very long time discussing these things. Our aim is of course a future increase in the share of cogenerated energy from 9% to 18%. It should be clear that what we are after is for the figure to be doubled. When it comes to working out the formulas, we would very much like the CEN Workshop to be involved, together with the Commission, and all parties involved to again get to grips with standardisation, so that, in the event of a second reading – which I expect we will have – there will be another variant to be debated. So we are, de facto, hiding behind the CEN Workshop as regards a final solution as to how we take this forward. It is my belief that, in principle, cogeneration can spark a completely new debate on the supply of electricity and energy, especially when we consider the micro-cogeneration plants. It is the very safety of the small circuit systems that makes them a very interesting concept for the future. We are all well aware from the renewable energy and the various central heating plants that we already have in the rural fabric and in small villages, that cogeneration has made its presence very much felt in these places, and that, moreover, the market of course functions in a completely different way. If, then, in future, we consider not only the large installations, which were our primary focus of attention here, but also the many small regional ones, perhaps even the domestic units that may one day be possible, we can accordingly achieve something on the market. In Wels, the city from which I come, they are planning a project called ‘EnergyLand’. In fact, Europe ought to be an ‘EnergyLand’. We are endeavouring to put research and development centre-stage in this ‘EnergyLand’ and, in the area of education and training, to make these new methods and new funding possibilities known to the wider public and, especially, to the business world. In future, of course, we should give closer attention to energy and to the infrastructure in the energy sector, for a secure energy supply and efficient energy should certainly be among the primary objectives of the European Union.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001103.txt','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001111.txt','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001142.txt','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.'),(6.704814434955447,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,2,'1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1001293.txt','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.'),(6.704814434955447,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,2,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004168.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.','Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. The Members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. At the same time, we should not forget the goals of the European Union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. Which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in Europe? Another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. Revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. On the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the EU superstore we could take off the shelves. Which products could be returned to the national level? It would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at European level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. This would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. There are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. One is B5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. The SMEs account for 66% of jobs. In excess of 55% of turnover in the European Community is generated by these enterprises. We must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the Euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. The second budget line B5-234 concerns financial support for the European digital capacity for global networks. Commissioner Liikanen advised this House that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. We must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. This will put us on the right footing in terms of the Internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to Europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. In addition, programmes such as BEST are of crucial importance to us. When it comes to enterprises of this kind – there are 18 million SMEs in Europe, 50% of which have no employees – we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. That is what creates jobs and new opportunities. That is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools – from primary school to university level – so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. We must reach agreement with the supply sector. How can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? To close, I would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. I believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. But we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. There are only a few more years to go. Many are already involved over there, many are interested, and I believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. We in the European Parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, Commissioner.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004182.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.','Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004211.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.','Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004219.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in principle to ban advertising for a product that is legally traded raises the question of what will happen in the future in competition law. If further decisions are taken here to ban advertising for sweets, cars and other categories of products, we will be faced with a problem with the market economy itself. You see, although these products are legal, it is not permitted to advertise them. What impact do you think this will have on other sectors – alcohol, for example – which also make a substantial contribution to financing motor racing, for example?'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004321.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already heard, this is a very good report. It covers all the key points as regards promoting a risk capital culture in Europe. This is particularly necessary given that efficient risk capital markets play a very important role in creating jobs on the one hand, and on the other, in increasing productivity, in financing rapidly growing companies and in creating new businesses. The report indicates that 66% of all jobs in the Community are in SMEs and that 80% to 90% of funding secured through venture capital is used to hire staff. We therefore need more capital for investment in job-creating, growth-intensive SMEs, and also for research and development and for business start-ups. These are the key points. Precisely because we are way behind the United States in this field, we are also calling on the Member States and the Commission to support more money – that is more risk capital – to provide start-up capital and capital for the early part of a company\'s life.   We want to cut down on red-tape: the one-stop shop model should be the rule in all countries, and we should take advantage of the new media here. We also want to see a tax system which at the same time promotes innovation and encourages private individuals to invest capital in businesses. I therefore also welcome the agreement reached in Lisbon to introduce a benchmarking system so as to promote the best of the many ways of encouraging risk capital and to make further progress in this area.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004339.txt','Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?','Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004358.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the PPE-DE Group\'s shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament\'s report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer\'s rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive\'s basic tendency.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004370.txt','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)','Mr President, I am delighted that this report has been put before the House. Especially with my being an entrepreneur, I would like to congratulate the Commission on having brought out, to excellent effect, what is lacking in Europe. What it boils down to is that there is not enough start-up capital available for people who want to set up in business, and so numerous young entrepreneurs have to give up again prematurely. Exports constitute a risk of course, and so it is particularly important for joint ventures to receive financial support in the early stages, more than at any other time. The guarantee system serves to ensure that not everyone who is willing to become an entrepreneur automatically jeopardises his livelihood in the process and faces the risk of financial ruin, at the very least, for the rest of his life. When we consider that approximately EUR 7 billion is available in risk capital in Europe, whilst in America the figure stands at EUR 12 billion, then we ought to give thought to how we can make good the difference. What steps can we take, particularly as regards agriculture? The very word BSE ought to inspire us to reflect on what kind of young enterprises we could establish in order better to guarantee food safety, carry out blood tests, develop treatments and so on. Urgent action is called for here. I would also like to stress that it is important for young entrepreneurs to be given a commitment they can rely on as speedily as possible. Deadlines should be set by which a decision must be given in the form of a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, so as to avoid any unnecessary risk. It is also important to apply the directive on tackling default in payment, so that people actually get their hands on the money within a set period of time. There is still too much hesitancy on this score for my liking. The Commission should submit proposals on project management, develop best practice methods, introduce benchmarks, on the basis of which it will be possible to examine how much time elapses between the first application and the successful creation of jobs. It also needs to monitor payment flows, and finally, promote the entire strategy in the public arena. When it comes to PR, one idea would be to have a ‘young entrepreneur of the year’ prize, awarded to the entrepreneur who has created the most jobs in absolute terms and in percentage figures. This would demonstrate at European level, and correspondingly in the Member States, that we are going the right way about this. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004388.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004400.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financial effects are, of course, considerable, and so I would be interested to know to what extent the Lisbon Process – showing as it does the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries – has been taken into account in the planning, whether that will be shown in specific Budget lines and what strategies you are envisaging for this.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financial effects are, of course, considerable, and so I would be interested to know to what extent the Lisbon Process – showing as it does the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries – has been taken into account in the planning, whether that will be shown in specific Budget lines and what strategies you are envisaging for this.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'100444.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is quite certain that Parliament will confirm Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell\'s appointment, and will probably do so unanimously. I believe that this is a good basis for setting new objectives in this key area of economic policy in future as well. At the hearing, we were told that she will work on developing new structures for the future of Europe. I met her in person at the debates on Basle II, and there too, she was able to assure us, very competently, that this issue is being taken seriously and that the European Central Bank is certainly also preparing analyses on this topic. I think that the issue of Basle II, especially as regards the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide, and the introduction of Basle II must be properly prepared, and the European Central Bank will play an important part in doing this. For this reason, the inclusion of the social partners in this area is also essential so that the requisite preparations can be made by common consent, for liquidity is naturally very important for the enterprises. After all, the wages have to be paid at the end of each month and in many cases, financial arrangements with the banks must be made as a matter of great urgency, and this can only be guaranteed if appropriate securities are provided. That is why we want best practice and benchmarking in tax policy as well, so that in future, adequate risk and own capital can be made available to the companies. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004492.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.','Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004518.txt','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.','Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004527.txt','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.','– (DE ) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old German saying to the effect that you do not just learn for school, you learn for life. That saying really does not hold true any more, as it implies that learning is limited to school. We need to see school as a foundation for acquiring basic skills, and we have to educate people in school as a basis for lifelong learning if we are to meet the challenges of the modern age. My second point is about the Lisbon objectives. We will not be able to become the most competitive continent in the world if we do not invest in human resources, which are our greatest asset. Competitiveness is not just about costs, it is about quality and about education and training, which are fundamental if we want a higher quality level of production, be quicker and reduce costs. My third point is that we of course also need to attempt to define Europe\'s objectives. What do we as a continent want to achieve in terms of educational targets? There is another question linked to this issue about defining objectives: what are Europe\'s minimum standards that distinguish us from other continents and which we also want to achieve within the internal market in all the Member States despite varying levels of competence? The Pisa Study provides an important basis here, because it is comparative and includes a best practice model. However, we have four players: the Member States, employers and employees, the public and providers. They all need to work together, and not just on programmes but also as regards financing. That is why I welcome the proposal for a ‘lifelong learning account’.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004552.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004606.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.'),(3.3524072174777233,3.3524072174777233,1000,'Finance',35,1,'1004638.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Flemming\'s remarks oblige me to say that we should not view this report in isolation from other reports and initiatives, for example, the Lisbon strategy, which also aims towards social cohesion and sustainability, the Commission report on the evaluation of national strategies for adequate and sustainable pensions, or the Streamlining Report on the coordination of employment policy with economic policy. All these serve the purpose of ensuring that our social security system continues to be financially viable, because that is what is needed. Demographic changes are relevant to every area of policy and have effects on the social fabric and on the socio-political framework, and so I welcome this report and this debate as helping to increase our awareness of these things. Action is needed, on the part of all of and us at every political level. A survey by Eurostat, a few days ago, showed that in 2002 there were fewer births, but more deaths, recorded in the EU. The number of live births in the EU reached 3.99 million in 2002, which is 0.3% fewer than in 2001. It is estimated that, in 2002, some 3.68 million people died in the EU, which amounts to some 60 000 more than in 2001. These figures alone show that our society faces a change which will affect policy on social security, employment, finance and the economy. There is just one aspect that I would like to pick out – that of care. In my country – Austria – alone, 540 000 people are at present in need of help and care. This figure will increase to just over 800 000 by 2011. At the same time, 84% of all those in need of care – and this is the case in all countries – receive that care from members of their own family. Only 26% require or receive additional help or avail themselves of it. Demographic and economic changes mean, though, that the family members who provide care are becoming fewer in number. The number of people employed in the care field has increased by 5.5%, so the health and welfare sector is creating jobs. Underdevelopment of many areas of the mobile care and support services means that far from all the sufficiently trained staff can be employed. I therefore demand certain things above all in this context. Among other things, we should be attaching greater importance to the mobile services and to the services needed to supplement them – hospices, family support, and day centres – and extending them. There is a need for a build-up of resources in personal environments and for more extensive support both for recipients of care and for their families. In my view, though, we also need uniform standards of training and professional development, as aid is often required across national boundaries. The caring professions need a campaign to enhance their image and we have to explore why they are so unstable and why staff remain in them for so short a time. Care is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need European standards for it. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Financial_centre',1,1,'1004558.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a unanimous resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to appoint Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank and to support this recommendation. Who is this lady? As we observed in the committee – and I am also responding to the critical comments voiced by my fellow Members – she is certainly not a media product. Nor is she a token woman. She is certainly not a cloned version of other comparable bank directors either. Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell is her own person with rough edges, principles, experience, demonstrable results and intuition. This was why, after the hearing in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 29 April, we all concluded that she merits description as frank, competent and a consummate professional. I have six demands to make of the new member of the ECB\'s Executive Board. Firstly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please strengthen the independence of the European Central Bank and boost its defences against populist and politically motivated interjections and apportionment of blame, including from politicians! In doing so, however – and this is my second point – do not hide behind the ECB Statute; instead, step up the dialogue on economic and monetary affairs with politicians, with Parliament, with the media and with the citizens of Europe. Thirdly, explain the economic context and background to the decisions more fully. By doing so, you will help to enhance the transparency and comprehensibility of monetary policy decisions. Fourthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, please also have the courage to make demands and even challenge the politicians – despite, or perhaps even because of, your independence and the variety of tasks on the agenda. We need this competition of ideas, this intellectual rivalry, in order to intensify the economic and monetary policy debate. Fifthly, Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell, you took a leading role in coordinating the preparations for Austria to join the economic and monetary union. I would ask you to place your experience at the disposal of the EU Member States who are not part of the eurozone. Our goal must be to make the euro the home currency of all citizens in all the EU Member States and ensure that it is seen as a strong brand for the most competitive internal market in the world. Sixthly – and a number of speakers have alluded to this – I would ask the new member of the European Central Bank\'s Executive Board to uphold the principle of price stability and adhere to it rigorously. Price stability produces low inflation and interest rates and is thus the prerequisite for growth, employment and an economic policy leading to prosperity. The candidate will join the ECB Executive Board at a very dynamic and exciting time. There is EU enlargement, which means that we will have more Member States outside the eurozone than in it. There are the different economic cycles, the cyclical and structural problems within the European Union, which we have just been discussing, the absence of economic dynamism, the lack of a pro-active approach and the lack of confidence in politics and economics, the forthcoming conclusion of the Basle II Accord and the drafting of a directive, and also the issue of whether Europe will become the financial centre of the world compared with other continents, regardless of the narrow-minded provincial outlook. All this requires a very self-confident, objective and persuasive personality capable of engaging in the debate, not only within the ECB. We are convinced that you are this person and can achieve the levels of performance required. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports your candidacy and wishes you every success. We look forward to what will undoubtedly be very constructive cooperation. ( Applause )'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Financial_crimes',1,1,'1004174.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Financial_crisis',2,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Financial_crisis',2,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1001104.txt','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1004202.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission\'s proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers\' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'100427.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency\'s desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain\'s unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country\'s economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan\'s possible economic downfall than of Argentina\'s economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America\'s strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1004398.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation in Liège we find ourselves.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur. That has already been said. There are four areas I would like to touch on briefly. First, we want to make the international monetary system more stable, because financial stability is, among other things, a public good and a basic economic precondition for growth, employment and social justice – that is to say, a moral duty. Second, we demand not simply a reform of the IMF, we require of the public authorities the moral obligation to create optimum balance between the free play of markets and the need for them to be regulated in accordance with the fundamental principle of the eco-social market economy, and to guarantee a balance between the public and private sectors in public rescue measures in times of crisis. We demand of the Member States economic policies geared to growth and employment, and we demand the cancellation of debt, subject to appropriate economic and political conditions. Third, we begin at home. The euro is a stability currency even in the eyes of the world. The response of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank after 11 September was one of stability in the face of the crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact is a European response. The Commission and the European Parliament have, by a majority, expressed their opposition to the Tobin tax, and the Liège resolutions include measures as correctives to globalisation. Fourth, we oppose measures to slow down economic development and ideologically motivated attempts to undo the Stability and Growth Pact or introduce the Tobin tax on its own, which create insecurity among those who work in the market. So I also regret that the Social Democrats\' Amendment No 10 reinterprets the actual Liège resolution by inserting the Tobin tax. Remove this reinterpretation; in Liège we find ourselves.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1004430.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the times when large parts of Europe suffered from hunger are over, thank God. That is, however, no reason to close our eyes to the fact that there are still real famines in large parts of the world today, especially in Africa. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Parliament is once again drawing attention to this catastrophic situation and backing strategies to fight it. Ladies and gentlemen, food aid to areas in crisis is too little in itself for a sustainable strategy. Thought must be given to many different factors, and these include structural causes in the developing countries, such as access to land and water, just as much as the need to increase logistical capacities and the existence of suitable infrastructures. Building up capacities that will help people to help themselves must be regarded as a key element. The unconditional opening of the European Union’s agricultural markets, which is called for by many, is not the only panacea for conquering hunger in the developing countries. Stable prices are important for farmers in the South as in the North. Rather, I see support for the building of national and regional markets as a practicable way of reducing these countries’ dependence on the industrialised nations. Mr President, we must continue to pursue a sustainable interregional strategy that puts the needs of the population to the fore. Commissioner, I would also like to stress that the transfer of technology and know-how in the field of agriculture is extremely important if a sustainable agriculture is to be achieved that not only produces for world trade but first and foremost supplies its own population with produce. At the same time, however, we must help the developing countries to meet the EU’s important food safety standards by taking public and plant health measures. In this connection, strategies will have to be devised to encourage private sector investment and development. Finally, Mr President, I would like to expressly say that a great deal of attention needs to be paid to preventing fraud particularly in connection with development aid. Farmers in rural areas in both North and South must not be the losers, because they provide our food and are the basis of all social needs and the guarantors of sustainable development. I am very pleased that we have found so broad a consensus here in this joint resolution.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1004473.txt','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)','Mr Duisenberg, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to divide what I am going to say into four parts. First, I want to thank the rapporteur for a highly comprehensive report which not only evaluates the ECB\'s report, but also enlarges on it and adds demands for future action, some of which originated in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. Secondly, I want to thank you, Mr Duisenberg, and the Executive Board for your good cooperation with Parliament and especially with our Committee, although there is room for improvement on both sides. For our part, we are endeavouring to step up dialogue and make it more exciting, to put questions in clearer terms and elicit more definite answers from you, whilst expecting that you will engage in more public information work. The public does not always find it easy to discern the thinking behind the ECB\'s decisions, but we are all aware that its policies directly affect purchasing patterns and the currency; hence the need for more public information to achieve greater transparency, acceptance on the part of the European public, and the stimulation of the economy within the framework outlined in your speech. We want to congratulate you not only on the work you have done and on the balance sheet you have produced, but also on what you did in the aftermath of 11 September, when the ECB\'s measures on interest rate and liquidity policy, agreed in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank, made a good impression as an immediate response to the attacks and one by which the threat of a financial crisis could be successfully averted. Congratulations also on the successful introduction of euro notes and coins, which faced us in this House with the problem of having statistics indicating, on the one hand, that the introduction went without a hitch, and, on the other, that there was great public uncertainty, on which paragraph 18 of the resolution is intended to have an effect. I would like to take the opportunity of my speech today to make it clear that the Stability and Growth Pact has played a part in the success of the euro and of the ECB, and that we resist all attempts at reinterpreting and nullifying the Stability and Growth Pact, which arise from short-sighted opportunism in response to day-to-day political events; the aftermath of enlargement will call for further structural and other reforms in politics and in the ECB. We hope that your work will continue to meet with such success and that you will also prove equal to these challenges. (Applause from the right)'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1004511.txt','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?','Mr President, I have a question concerning how events will run in practice. What would happen today if a neutral Member State was attacked militarily by a non-EU State? What would you do and which course of action would you recommend? We have just recently had a military crisis between the borders of two EU countries, namely between Greece and Austria. What plan would you have if a military attack were to take place today against an EU country, even if it were a neutral EU country? How would you proceed as President-in-Office of the Council?'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1004541.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why does the Council want a competitive Europe? And why do we support this objective? For us, it is a case of safeguarding jobs in Europe and creating new and attractive jobs. That is the number one priority. The crisis in farming caused by BSE and other diseases will lead to employment problems in agriculture, the meat trade and many other businesses. That means that we need to think about how we can plan for the future and open up new possibilities for the workforce. There are two very well known approaches to moving forward here, namely investment in training and in research. As regards research, money particularly needs to be invested in market research, that is to say into what products consumers buy, and also, of course, in product research – for example, how can renewable energy be produced in the agricultural sector to counteract Europe\'s dependence on imports? There are two sectors that will create a great many jobs in the future. One of these is the computer industry, including the development of hardware and software, the information technology of the future, and the other is that we all want to live to a healthy old age, which means that we need social support mechanisms, and we need research into biotechnology to guarantee a healthy old age. To achieve this, we therefore need access to finance, particularly for micro-companies. Nowadays, it is almost impossible for a company with less than 10 employees to obtain finance unless the family, or extended family, can provide security. We must advocate concrete measures in this area, as companies with less than 250 employees after all account for 60% of GNP and 60% of employment in Europe.'),(4.3428059215196,4.3428059215196,1000,'Financial_crisis_of_2007–08',13,1,'1004578.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.','Mr President, Commissioner, the South Caucasus is a region in crisis on Europe’s doorstep, and, ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict broke out, the European Union has had a strategic rather than merely humanitarian interest in keeping it economically and politically stable. One of the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union is that these hotspots are closer to us, and the prospect of a neighbourhood policy based on the present partnership and cooperation agreement should help to stabilise this region. Last year, elections were held in all three Caucasus states, and an ad hoc delegation from the European Parliament, of which the rapporteur was a member, found that these elections did not always bear any relation to our democratic conceptions of what elections and democracy are about. If you combine ethnic conflicts, mass poverty, corruption and a lack of democracy, you get an explosive mixture, to which you can add the still-unresolved conflict centred on Nagorno Karabakh, the consequence of which for Azerbaijan was the loss of 20% of its territory, along with great floods of refugees, and which from 1992 to 1999 alone, cost the European Union something like EUR 180 million. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats sought to avoid pouring oil on the flames, to take account of the opposing parties’ sensitivities, and also to give due consideration to Russian and Turkish influence in the region. Political solutions cannot be imposed through the back door; the parties involved, along with their strategic backers, must themselves help to defuse tensions. Non-intervention is of course inadequate as a strategy. The appointment of a special representative to the region may, therefore, have been helpful, not least because it gave the EU a more visible presence in South Caucasus. What would be most helpful, though, would be a visible détente in relations between Turkey and Armenia, which would involve Turkey lifting its blockade. The Stability Pact that this House is quite right to want for the South Caucasus has no real prospect of success unless the conflicts between neighbouring states are resolved, particularly Turkey’s with the countries there. It is our humanitarian and democratic interests, and also our energy strategy considerations, that mean that there is no alternative to a more in-depth strategy for the South Caucasus. At the beginning of this year, the foreign ministers, too, took this into account when they called on the Commission and the High Representative to include Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the new ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. If tension is to be reduced, there must be an awareness that, although the concept of a Wider Europe is worthwhile, there is hardly any prospect of it becoming reality unless the countries between which there is conflict involve Turkey, Russia, the USA and the European Union in their efforts at resolving it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Financial_endowment',1,1,'1004588.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament\'s initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Financial_institution',3,1,'1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Financial_institution',3,1,'1001244.txt','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Financial_institution',3,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Financial_instrument',2,1,'1004180.txt','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not whether there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but how. In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)','Mr President, now that the Helsinki European Council has confirmed Turkey\'s status as a candidate for accession which must fulfil the same criteria as the other candidate countries, it is logical that Turkey should also benefit from a pre-accession strategy and an Accession Partnership. The Swoboda report is one outcome of the Helsinki decision and is therefore important. Let me repeat, the issue is not \"whether\" there should be an Accession Partnership and pre-accession strategy, but \"how\". In one respect, the Swoboda report goes far beyond the Commission\'s proposal in that it calls for Turkey to be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments. This would have two consequences. Firstly, the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments would have to be cut back, and secondly, the Berlin financial agreement would have to be cancelled. Both are highly unlikely scenarios. On the other budgetary aspects, I go along with the Swoboda report. I also think it is important that there should be no discrimination against Turkey. But SAPARD and ISPA are designed for transformation societies which are evolving from a communist planned economy to what is hopefully a social market economy. And of course this does not apply to Turkey. The purpose of the pre-accession strategy and Accession Partnership must be to achieve convergence between Turkey\'s political, economic and social conditions and the EU. It is essential that all candidates for accession are treated equally. But this does not require any additional resources, e.g. from PHARE, ISPA or SAPARD; it requires the same procedures as apply to the distribution of PHARE funding. I therefore call once more for Amendment No 1 of the Swoboda report to be rejected. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Financial_instrument',2,1,'1004380.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEADER+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEADER+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'10014.txt','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'10041.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.','Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by saying that I am very glad that it is under your presidency that I have been called to speak, as I rejoice to see you in Parliament\'s new bureau. The reason why the Group of the European People\'s Party/European Democrats has addressed this question to the Commission is that we want, after the Villiers report, prior to the presentation of the third consultative document and before the Commission complete the draft Directive, to give a clear signal to the public and to the enterprises affected that we speak for the affected parties in the Directive\'s drafting process and that we want to be more involved in the discussion process, both as regards the monitoring of the Basle Committee and also the preparation of the Directive. The basic conception of Basle II, of closer alignment of the capital base of banks to the actual risks, is in our view something to be welcomed. What is of the essence, though, is what form it should take in practice, as it is only through a conversion appropriate to our economic structure that the financial sector including an essential pillar of the economy and its enterprises, above all the small and medium-sized ones, can actually be strengthened. The previous proposals by the Basle Committee on banking supervision are, in our present view, still unsatisfactory, and we believe that they should, in many instances, undergo thorough revision. Our question today is prompted by our economic structure. Eighteen million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe create 75% of European jobs and pay 80% of the taxes. These enterprises\' capital costs are therefore crucial to their competitiveness and to the maintenance of the small and medium-scale economic structure. We believe, Commissioner, that the Commission – and I would also like to know what you intend doing about this – should be an intermediary between the six Member States of the European Union that are not members of the Basle Committee and the nine that are, and that we really must do everything we can to ensure that the Nine really do represent the Fifteen. It is only if this happens that I can regard it as at all feasible to incorporate the Basle result unchanged into the draft Directive, as Commissioner Bolkestein has said in his statement. If this does not happen, all the various opinions will find their way into discussion of the Directive, leaving Parliament, the Commission and the Council far less room to manoeuvre. It is for this reason that we, that is Mr Radwan, Mrs Villiers and I, have put a number of questions to you, which we urgently want to have answered when the Directive is drafted. They relate to the consequential costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and to the issue of flexibility in the Directive\'s application to small and medium-sized enterprises and to banks; they also relate to the date on which the Directive will enter into force and to the Commission\'s role as co-ordinator between the nine represented on the Basle Committee and the six not represented on it. The question takes up the cause of the medium-scale economic structures in Europe and is intended to give voice to the questions that small and medium-sized banks and enterprises want to ask. We look forward to you giving definite answers to them.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004214.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking all of those involved in this compromise, beginning with the rapporteur and Mr Radwan. It was a very difficult task, but we were successful. Further, I would like to make it clear that Parliament wants to pass this directive in this term and we hope that this compromise will also help the Council to come to one of its own. The new directive for investment services and regulated markets will strengthen the single European financial market. Why do we even need a directive? Because inadequately harmonised rules, high levels of bureaucracy and antiquated provisions for investor protection have so far been considerable barriers to cross-border securities trading. What are the main points of our compromise and the new regulations? Firstly, investor protection. Investors must be well informed and the rules on the conduct of business are one of the most important pillars of investor protection: the differences between advice and non-advice business. In future a suitability test will only be required for advice business. Thirdly, we want the best possible service. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have come up with a wording that is acceptable to both small and large financial institutions. Fourthly, the decisive point: the level playing field between banks dealing internally with securities and markets. In this compromise, it was decided that banks are subject to appropriate supervisory and transparency rules. The aim is that the internalisation systems are allowed but not to the detriment of markets and other market participants. We hope that this compromise will make for fairer competition between banks and stock markets, from which the consumer will benefit most. I would ask everyone to vote in favour of the compromise the day after tomorrow.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004294.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the  Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004316.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.','Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank Mrs Peijs for her persistence and consistency, which have certainly paid off here. In 47 days the euro coins and notes will be available to everyone in the euro zone as a common currency, in my opinion, the greatest European Union project ever in terms of creating identity and fostering integration. The euro zone will be a domestic market within the internal market. We are all called upon to do all we can, not only in connection with cross-border payments, to bring down the barriers to the creation of this domestic financial market. The difference in cost between national and cross-border transfers in the domestic market stands in contradiction to our objectives. A Commission study has shown that although these charges have been steadily falling since 1993, even today, at some banks, people are still having to fork out up to EUR 24 to transfer EUR 100 to another country in the EU. That is why this Commission proposal and the report are needed. Nevertheless, I wish to say on behalf of my group that we would welcome a genuine system of bank self-regulation, a system which is sustainable, comprehensive and credible. It is true that the proposals currently on the table are moving in the direction of a system of self-regulation of this kind, but we do not think that they go far enough. That is also why this report is being tabled here. Should a credible and sustainable system of self-regulation be forthcoming then we would be prepared to vote against the regulation at the next reading, which would allow the Commission not to implement its proposal for a regulation. However, we are waiting on the banks. The ball is in their court. We must adopt this approach because none of the measures taken so far have been sufficient.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004506.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.','Madam President, Commissioner, I should like once again to say a few words on the modus operandi and the ideological tactics behind this oral question. Also because I know how many social democrats in this House share our criticism, and not just the economic and financial policy experts. We know what the problem is: instability on the markets as the result of speculation. But the people asking the question need to know that not every instance of instability, as the Commissioner has just so impressively told us, is the result of speculation. The Tobin tax would not have been able to prevent the crises in the EEA in 1992 and 1993 or the crises in the south-east Asian currencies in 1997. The initiators of this question do not propose a solution; instead they are calling for a new burden, they are calling for more bureaucracy, for a measure which runs counter to the market mechanisms and they are taking up plenary’s time with an intergroup opinion which excludes the competent parliamentary committee, contrary to several resolutions by Parliament. In my view, and I say this quite clearly, the question is ideologically motivated rather than solution-focused. I consider this to be the wrong way forward for several reasons. Why do we reject the Tobin tax and consider it so questionable? First, and the Commissioner has also confirmed this, because it places a heavy burden on the capital markets. Even a small tax would have serious repercussions on the capital markets, because this sort of speculation tax would reduce the profitability of investments considerably. In addition, this sort of measure would also seriously hamper the development of the financial markets and would stand in the way of the principle of the free movement of capital, which is one of the central tenets of the internal market. Secondly, speculative capital is extremely difficult to identify. Thirdly, unless they are introduced in all countries at the same time, tax measures are easy to circumvent because there are otherwise too many loopholes. Fourthly, technically speaking, this measure is highly impracticable and will result in a great deal of bureaucracy and administration and be impossible to control. The measure which we should be taking is part of the resolution before us here today. We need stronger banking supervision. We need to clarify the liability for transactions. We need a framework of regulations at international level. We need to examine national laws in order to check that they comply with the rules of the Basle committee and how the dissemination of these rules can be stepped up. I have a serious problem with one of the central points of this resolution which we cannot accept as it stands. I refer to point 9. Having listened to the Commissioner just now, we know that the Commission’s knowledge of the facts will result in a ‘no’ to the Tobin tax. If the knowledge of the facts and this debate and the arguments are as we say, and I think that they are right, then to take up another six months of the Commission’s time and occasion uncertainty on the financial and capital markets would be irresponsible. The capital markets do not want uncertainty from us, they want clarity; which is why we reject point 9 and call for a split vote.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004516.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board there should be no rotation principle in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will all – institutions and politicians alike – have to review and reshape our communication strategies, priorities and working methods, but also our decision-making and opinion-forming processes in the light of the European Union\'s enlargement to what will probably be more than 30 states – if we include the Balkan countries – but also in the light of the political challenges which are being set for us and which we are setting ourselves. Against this background, we welcome the fact that the ECB has put forward a proposal unanimously. We also welcome the fact that a clear political message has been sent that the ECB should in future regulate its decision-making mechanisms itself, and that we do not want to make any special provisions here. There is absolutely no reason why this decision should be adopted hastily, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. We can continue in familiar fashion and prepare a fundamental reform with the next Intergovernmental Conference. The fundamental reform which is necessary, and which we intend, differs in one key respect. We say: everyone should remain on board; there should be no rotation principle; in a common Europe, everyone should have a say in the ECB. The solution is not rotation but weighting. This weighting could be based on the weighting in the Council, but must build primarily on economic and financial market policy parameters. Rather than more complexity, we want greater transparency. We do not want new forms of discrimination, but more integration and therefore greater clarity for the public. Take us up on our offer, which is to prepare a comprehensive reform instead of an over-hasty short-term solution!'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004519.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of  demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.'),(4.509860006182767,4.509860006182767,1000,'Financial_market',11,1,'1004571.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words about each of the reports, and also something about the previous speaker\'s comments of course. No matter what political group he or she might belong to, I would never insinuate that a fellow Member had let himself or herself be guided by anything but objective policy considerations in reaching a decision or deciding how to vote. The majorities that prevail may vary, but since I have been following its activities, the hallmark of the work of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been a very objective atmosphere and one very much geared to the Community\'s economic and monetary policy, so that the suggestion that has been made here is one that I cannot agree with and would like to refute. Nevertheless, I agree with you of course that within the euro area and also as regards our common foreign and security policy we need to speak with one voice, both internally and externally. However, and this point concerns both reports, competition is becoming an increasingly global matter. The euro will come into circulation in 89 days, and it is already the second most important currency in the world. The euro coins and notes will make the importance of this single European currency on the world market very clear. This is a very important aspect, and we must at all times be very disciplined about keeping Europe\'s presence on the world financial stage in mind. Global competition does of course require that in addition to the single market and economic and monetary union the necessary coordination needs to take place within the euro area and within the European Union as a whole. What does this mean? On the one hand it means coordination so that a strong internal market is created in the euro area and Europe becomes more competitive. On the other hand, you need to understand that it also involves maintaining freedom as the basis of competition within the framework agreed between the Member States. We are, of course, not all convinced that coordination in itself is a panacea, because we also need to consider where coordination starts. What mechanisms does coordination involve, and what are the limits of coordination? Does coordination inhibit the functioning of the market or support it? This is undisputedly a debate that we need to hold, as decisions cannot simply be taken under the heading of coordination. That is why we are in favour of more debates on European issues in national parliaments, in favour of coordination by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and enhanced links with national statistical bodies, and in favour of mutual exchange of information as a means of achieving joint tasks. However, we naturally oppose increased bureaucracy, the setting up of new bodies and higher expenditure on bureaucracy masquerading as coordination. We need more efficiency and professionalism in the structures that already exist in order to improve what we do jointly. That does not mean reducing freedom of action and freedom of decision making in the Member States. And we also oppose the information that has leaked out about tax collection or the use of tax income, because we believe that there is no legal basis for that either. I have simply highlighted two issues that we need to debate further. We will be voting for the report, but not all the details about what is meant and what mechanisms are necessary have been clarified. I would like to say one more thing to Mrs Berès: it is important that you have tackled the issue of the link between public finances and reducing inflation, and thus touched on the subject of assessing the financial markets. We need to give public finances a clean bill of health again, so that we increase the investment capital at our disposal, and I therefore call on everyone mentioned in the report to do their homework properly and not just take cosmetic measures!'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004146.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like welcome, request, reaffirm, expect were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like \"welcome, request, reaffirm, expect\" were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe\'s real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament\'s decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe\'s role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF\'s have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004199.txt','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.','Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation. Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures. We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision. A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance. I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available. To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament\'s decisions.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004248.txt','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.','Mr President, this is all going more quickly than any of us thought. I would like to start by apologising on behalf of Mrs Villiers, who has just, at the end of a vote in our Group\'s Conservative delegation, been appointed deputy leader of the delegation, on which I warmly congratulate her. As a lot has already been said, I would like to enlarge on just a few things. Firstly, the speakers on this item and its predecessor have set themselves a great goal. We want to do our utmost to ensure that the action plan for financial services – of which this directive is a part – is of high quality and can be adopted and implemented swiftly and in accordance with the timetable. We hope that, unlike on other occasions, the Council will not delay in producing its own position in response to the preparatory work done at least on this issue by Parliament and the Commission. Mr Lehne, who spoke before me, has already pointed out that it was the 1998 directive on settlement finality that set up the first milestone for Europe-wide financial policy. This has to date been the only piece of European legislation governing cross-frontier securities in connection with financial transactions. We need standardised regulation in this area in order to make the internal market efficient. We need to do away with the uncertainty as regards the law applicable to transactions across borders in negotiable securities. We need to do away with the increased administrative costs that stand in the way of an integrated EU market which is more attractive in terms of cost. We need to do away with the legal uncertainty that comes with 15 different legal systems, because these differing legal systems lead to risks when securities are utilised abroad. We also need to do away with the differing legislation on insolvency. There is, then, a need for a standard minimum regulation. This directive is the only means by which these objectives can be achieved, and so we welcome it and support the rapporteur\'s report and that produced by Mr Lehne of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many thanks! We hope that it will be possible swiftly to implement this report by Parliament, together with the Commission\'s proposals, and thus turn them into a reality.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'100425.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for reminding us all once again of the corner stones – not only because these are uncertain times, but also because this has been a very confusing debate – and for not setting them against each other either, but reminding us that they are principles of European economic policy. I should like to start where Mr Gasòliba i Böhm left off. We are not setting new objectives. We are not making new promises or developing new hypotheses and analyses. What we are doing is finally taking ourselves seriously. If you do not take yourself seriously, then others will not take you seriously either. Some of us complain about the common principles of economic policy and at the same time criticise the fact that they are not respected. We regret the fact that growth, productivity and employment are falling, and that we are not making up ground but are lagging behind, and some of us think that the response to this diagnosis is more state intervention and more debt. Do the Members on the Left really believe this, even though at the same time we have to acknowledge that we do not even meet all of the objectives that we have set ourselves? We talk about the rules, but at the same time we say – at least some of us do – that the rules should not be respected in such and such a case by such and such a country. At the same time, we regret the crisis of confidence in Europe about many economic policy measures and the principles and objectives of the European Union. You only create confidence with accountability and you only create accountability if you keep to and act on the things you resolve to do, both at European level and in the Member States. That is why I say very clearly on behalf of my group that we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. If we say ‘yes’ to the internal market however we must finally see to it that the barriers in the internal market are eliminated, that we really do create an action plan for financial services, that we really do implement the Risk Capital Action Plan, that we really do make the Charter for Small Enterprises a reality. We say ‘yes’ to competition policy. But that also means that we must, at last, eliminate tax provisions that distort competition. For some types of tax, such as value-added tax, energy tax, corporation tax and the taxation of pension funds, a convergence programme is necessary. We say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy, but if we say ‘yes’ to the Lisbon strategy then we also have to say ‘yes’ to a model of the market economy that takes account of environmental and social concerns and does not constantly play the market off against social security. This also means that we finally need to ensure that with each piece of legislation we identify its economic impact and its impact on employment and the environment before we adopt it, rather than waiting until afterwards to be allowed to complain about the consequences. We say ‘yes’ to a benchmark. We must learn from each other. And we say ‘yes’ to the Stability Pact because it provides an ordered framework, and that is why we also say ‘no’ to the golden rules, because they undermine the Stability Pact and we would thereby be stabbing the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in the back and betraying the Stability and Growth objectives.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004298.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am glad that the report on the economic consequences for Europe of 11 September is being debated in the run-up to the Barcelona Summit and in the Bullmann report, as the consequences of 11 September are very closely connected with the future development and implementation of the Lisbon process. Although many have returned to their daily business, the attacks on 11 September dealt the Western world a shock, as terrorist acts on this scale had hitherto, in any case, dwelt in the realms of science fiction. At the same time – and this is very important to us – they struck at a crucial stage for the global economy, marked as it was by perceptible slow growth in most of the industrialised countries. It is for this reason that I would like to warn the Member States and enterprises against seeing the events of 11 September as the sole cause of the contraction in economic activity and using it to cloak their own economic and political omissions. Our economic problems were, to a great extent, exacerbated by 11 September. We have to distinguish precisely between the problems that existed even before 11 September and were further aggravated by the attacks, and those which, in contrast, arose only after them. It often, though, seems today as if – thank God – the terrorist attacks\' adverse effects on the European economy are being contained, and, as Mr Duisenberg was saying only a few days ago, problems in several areas have now resolved themselves. The sectors which were disproportionately affected were, and are, the insurance industry, to a slightly lesser extent the tourist industry, above all the conference trade, and the incentives sector. It was fortunate that enhanced economic activity in the internal market in tourism made it possible to regain a great deal of ground. Insurance for large-scale industry, as well as airlines and airports, have been particularly affected. Parliament\'s report makes a very clear distinction between these two areas. We are also glad, and we should say so today, that cooperation between the European Central Bank and the American Federal Reserve, between Mr Greenspan and Mr Duisenberg, has worked. The euro has proved itself in this difficult stage, and the erosion of its value, albeit striking and shocking, has not resulted in a global economic crisis or in a monetary crisis in Europe. At the same time, we have also seen that we are still, and by a long way, insufficiently independent of the American economy, and that our internal market and the economic activity within it is not yet sufficiently independent of global economic developments. This is where we have to begin at home, and so what we ask of the Barcelona Summit is a new offensive on the growth and innovation front, aimed at stimulating growth, investment and employment by means of justifiable optimism about economic activity. We need to look carefully at where there are still hindrances to the internal market. Where are directives not yet being transposed? Where is the implementation of common objectives such as the Action Plan for Financial Services, the Lisbon process or yet others being held up by differences about competences? We must do everything possible to support the establishment and economic structure of small and medium-sized enterprises. My group has therefore tabled an amendment to Mr Bullmann\'s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to make it their concern, in the revision of the new capital accords in Basle, to take the structural characteristics of European enterprises into account, help small and medium-sized enterprises and to create the underlying conditions in the new EU capital base framework, so that the process being moved forward in Basle, which is the right one, may not result in adverse consequences, but lead to support for the economy. I also think that we have to make more use of our right of initiative in order to remove the hindrances to the internal market, become more autonomous and, at the same time, to make fully effective the economic potential that exists in Europe, in line with our objectives. If this happens and we learn the lessons of 11 September and take ourselves seriously, then we will be able to make even better use of the opportunities arising from the new worldview, and of our role in the world in accordance with our supersedence principle, of the environmentally responsible market economy, and perhaps get them more in motion. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004317.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, because there is of course a need to clarify a number of points in connection with the report on occupational retirement provision, the second pillar. Some say that this is a directive which, in the first instance, needs to be seen as part of the financial services sector. Others think that we ought to use the directive straight away to cover conclusively the whole second-pillar package, from taxation issues to social security, therefore including biometric risks. You have now explained that this is just one step in the process and that others will have to follow so that the directive – and here we are of the same mind – does not perpetuate existing distortions of competition. The tax issue is fundamental here, but the social aspects, the issue of supervisory regimes, the issues of labour law and social law – which after all are not the same thing – of course also have their part to play. Commissioner, I must also repeat that for us, and for me as rapporteur, this directive represents a step forward, a considerable one, which sets the ball rolling. Further Commission initiatives will have to follow, which we will address in our report very clearly and in ever greater detail, because we will not have transferable pensions and mobility within the EU until the Member States agree on common taxation principles. We know that setting the tax rate is part of income tax and thus falls within the purview of the Member States. Nevertheless, in my view, a general shift to downstream taxation is necessary to avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice or not at all. A second point is very important to us, putting an end to the discriminatory tax treatment of service providers established in another Member State and pension contributions made by EU citizens resident in another Member State. This system is practised in many Member States and is tantamount to cordoning off the pension market. Although our views may coincide here, in many respects we are sceptical about whether this really will be achieved. On the one hand you are now announcing a communication rather than a directive – you will have your reasons for this. A second point, however, makes me even more sceptical: at the last plenary sitting of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, announced the demands that he was going to make at the summit in Stockholm with respect to occupational retirement provision and the tax issue. There is a difference between the demands which were expressed here in the last Strasbourg week and the final document from Stockholm. In the final Stockholm document, the pensions issue is, in fact, reduced to the labour market of the over 55s and is no longer worded, as announced here, as a call to reform the pensions system and remove all tax obstacles. That is why we would ask you to ensure that the initiatives, which you have again mentioned today as being necessary to follow up on the directive, quickly become part of actual Commission proposals, so that we do not encounter possible difficulties with the application of this directive on occupational retirement provision on account of the many unresolved issues.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004344.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001 but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, at the beginning of my speech on this report, to thank three groups of people: firstly, and especially, the representatives of the Spanish and Danish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency made the common position possible, and the Danish Presidency worked hard at seeking dialogue with us. I am also glad and grateful that, in the last week, the Greek Presidency has set aside its self-imposed ban on engaging in talks. I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein’s political staff and secretariat for their constant readiness to engage in discussions with us and to work with us on reaching compromises. Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne, together with my committee colleagues, who were extremely flexible and who conducted themselves in such a way as consistently to help us bring about this directive without our having to jettison the principles we laid down at first reading. I should like to thank them most sincerely for their contribution. The second point I should like to make is that this directive has also clearly shown the problems we have where legislative procedure is concerned. In October 2000, we received the Commission proposal; and Parliament concluded the first reading in July 2001; but it was not until 5 November 2002 that the common position was made known to us. Today we have the second reading debate, and tomorrow the vote. As this needs to be recalled to mind, I would take this opportunity to state very clearly that we wanted to show our ability to conclude such an important directive at first reading. Parliament’s first reading produced 458 votes in favour. If the Council had accepted this gesture of cooperation on our part, we should already have had this directive long ago. My third point, which I make partly in response to a number of today’s press reports, is that this directive is neither a pensions directive nor a directive concerned with social insurance products. Nor does it just have to do with occupational retirement provision. As its name suggests, it is a directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. That needs to be stated, because we are concerned here with a financial services directive. That being said, many wishes have of course been expressed to me in terms of defining the benefits, designing the products, and so on. When they hear the words ‘occupational retirement provision’, people ask what the benefits are for themselves at a time of prevailing uncertainty in all the Member States where pensions are concerned. In view of the fact that the financial services and internal market directives, together with the relevant institutions, play a key role in the funding of the European economy and the operation of capital markets, we have tried, in this highly charged situation, to follow the path laid down in Lisbon and to bring about not only competition but also a corresponding degree of social security. We also had the task of structuring occupational pension schemes as the second pillar of retirement provision and of dealing with the social aspects of this. This directive is a success for the European Parliament. We amended the Commission proposal at first reading. At second reading, we shall amend the common position along lines that reflect our own thinking. This directive is not the end product. It is a first step. I believe that the directive will be of benefit to people because there will be more suppliers in competition with one another; that, with the creation of the European market, it will have more advantages for people on the move; that it will have more advantages for citizens and suppliers because the second pillar too will now be regulated on a European basis; and that it will benefit the capital market by moving sums to the tune of EUR 2 000 billion around the market and hopefully increasing that capital. The directive will be of benefit to the internal market due to the provision of venture capital, and it will be of benefit to the institutions because European regulations will exist, so making cross-border activities easier. We have made amendments to six items as a matter of priority. The amount of information to be given to recipients of pensions has been increased. The biometric risks have been clearly formulated, and it has been made possible to cover these. It has been clearly specified that our objective is life-long pensions, which must be at the heart of our arrangements. The directive will lead to coordination of the work of the supervisory authorities, and it has laid the foundations for a level playing field. It has still not liberalised the assessment stipulations. Given the Council’s position, that was not possible. Nor has the directive clarified the issue of tax harmonisation, and it has still not fulfilled our desire to see the second pillar structured in the same way throughout Europe, so providing for greater social security. The directive is an important step in the right direction, however. I believe we have maintained the balance within the framework of our competences and the existing options. I should like most sincerely to thank all those who have contributed to the work. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004446.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy  that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe\'s financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe\'s financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects  on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004508.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in my contribution to this debate I should like to clarify a few points which, I believe, are in need of clarification. First of all, Karl von Wogau’s report is not a school report card on the progress of the Member States’ economic policies. This report by Karl von Wogau is a report on the economic guidelines for the future and an analysis of the status quo . I am therefore very grateful that Karl von Wogau chose the term ‘home market’ in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins, because the single currency is the greatest integration project of the present-day European Union. The introduction of euro notes and coins will be a clearly visible reminder of our European home, a reminder that will be given to all the people of the euro zone whenever they handle the single currency. It is also positive that this concept of a home market will also remind the public so tangibly of the political integration project that underlies the introduction of the euro, since this could provide an extremely powerful impetus for the political pursuit of economic progress, employment and European integration. A second point is that I fail to understand how, in this day and age, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs can still try to present capital and growth as the enemies of employment, which came across to some extent in Mrs Weiler’s speech. This is why it was necessary once again to put the concept of a socially committed market economy at the heart of this report. I should like to extend the concept into that of a socially and environmentally committed market economy. What do we mean by that? We mean that we are opposed to the treatment of growth and employment as two completely separate issues. That is why we have pledged ourselves to the Stability Pact and to growth and employment. A socially committed market economy encourages social responsibility, ecological sustainability and an education policy rooted in the principle of lifelong learning. Let me finish with an appeal to the Council. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines require us all to work together. Since the report says that the EU market in financial services must become an integrated, efficient market, and since we are forever stressing the important role played by pensions and by accelerated procedures, I have to say to the Council that the Ecofin Council, at its last meeting, certainly paid further lip service to the principles that are involved here but, when it came to company pensions and the Lamfalussy report, betrayed those selfsame principles. The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines can be implemented with the active support of the Council. Now is the time for it to act. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004512.txt','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)'),(4.4228486291901365,4.4228486291901365,1000,'Financial_services',12,1,'1004522.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar.  We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Financial_Services_Action_Plan',3,1,'1004415.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.','Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Huhne, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by giving Mrs Kauppi’s apologies. She regrets that her flight cannot get her here yet, and so she has asked me to stand in for her. We know that this directive is an important part of the financial services action plan. What are this action plan’s strategic objectives for the financial internal market? The first is that a single wholesale market for financial services should be guaranteed; the second is the creation of open and safe retail markets, and the third is the modernisation of the rules of compliance and of the way in which they are monitored. What is today’s debate about? Today we are debating the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. What do we mean by a prospectus? By that we mean a document published when shares or bonds are issued, containing those items of information considered necessary to investors. What does the directive aim at? It aims to introduce a single passport for prospectuses, approved by the authorities in the country of origin and subsequently recognised throughout the EU for the purposes of the public offering of securities and/or their admission to trading on regulated markets. In place of the fifteen separate authorisations still required despite two directives on the subject, only one authorisation will be required under the new directive for what will be the twenty-five Member States of the European Union. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs of all the groups, and also to the chairman of the committee, for the great deal of time and effort that they have devoted to this. Last Thursday, when we were in a conference call, we were in fact even more divided, but it was possible, on the Friday, for us to make a conciliation committee unnecessary; I think this right and proper, as we have no idea whether the conciliation committee would have enabled us to make any progress or might indeed have jeopardised this important directive. The six major successes achieved by Parliament mean that we can say yes to the compromise. As early as first reading stage, we managed to add the sunset clause to the Lamfalussy procedure, to produce a better definition of professional investors and to take greater account of small and medium-sized firms. At second reading stage, and in recent days, we succeeded in getting a free choice of supervisory authority for non-dividend-bearing securities with a denomination per unit of at least EUR 1 000, which amounts, de facto , to a free choice of supervisory authority. We managed to get the deadlines for authorisation reduced; it is still possible for supervisory authorities to delegate; and the position will be reviewed after five years. If, though, the Commission’s report after these five years is an unfavourable one – which I do not expect it will be – the option of delegation will have to lapse after eight years, so that, here too, we have improved the Common Position along the lines desired by Parliament. This does not mean that everything has been sorted out. It is a cause of anguish to me that there are two things that have not been achieved. One is a rule on basic prospectuses for all banks issuing shares, for which I campaigned. Here – as is, indeed, stated in the recitals – it was not possible to do justice to the aim of this directive, that being to speed the process up. The directive has rather missed the mark here. The second thing that did not get through – although this was adopted with the support of all groups in this House – was the increase in maximum value for each issuer from EUR 50 to EUR 100, in respect of which exceptions are possible. That would have been a help especially for states such as Austria and Germany, where no prospectus is at present required below this threshold. Although it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in this, the compromise is, all in all, a good one, and we will therefore be supporting it.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Financial_Services_Action_Plan',3,1,'100450.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe\'s achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe\'s, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council\'s behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Financial_Services_Action_Plan',3,1,'1004636.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr Lamassoure, to whom many thanks, people in my country understand things very well, as 53% of them think that the European Union will become more important in the next few years. At the same time, seven out of ten of them assert that too little account is taken of the interests of the individual citizen. I attribute this tension to the fact that the realities of the decision-making and opinion-forming process not being sufficiently clearly and transparently communicated. Mr Lamassoure\'s report is helpful precisely because it very clearly highlights the mutual involvement and interaction between citizens, communities, regions, nations and Europe. The EU is not somewhere else; rather, we all make up Europe. No decisions are reached without the agreement of the Member States, and therefore without the national parliaments, when they see themselves as monitoring what the representatives of their national governments do in the Council. Clear competences lead to clear responsibilities and clear parliamentary authority and thus to the decision-making process becoming more transparent. I also think, though, that we have to make it clear that differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the blocking or delaying of jointly-agreed objectives such as the four freedoms, the financial services action plan or the internal market. Differing competences must not be allowed to lead to the Commission\'s competence as guardian of the Treaties – in such matters as the Stability and Growth Pact – being nullified. Not all the problems faced by our countries\' regions can be resolved through Europe. Co-decision by Parliament leads to greater transparency, more democracy, better control and hence to greater proximity to the public.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Fine_(penalty)',2,1,'100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Fine_(penalty)',2,1,'1004582.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe\'s position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission\'s proposal to apply the \'de minimis\' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fine_by_Me_(Chris_Brown_song)',1,1,'1004117.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I found out today that France has banned rugby. That is fine by me. However, my question is this: do you think that boxing is really a sport which should be encouraged, and do you think that boxing is especially conducive to the morals and ethical values of young people?','Mr President, Commissioner, I found out today that France has banned rugby. That is fine by me. However, my question is this: do you think that boxing is really a sport which should be encouraged, and do you think that boxing is especially conducive to the morals and ethical values of young people?'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Fingerprint',2,1,'1004101.txt','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)','Mr President, I am speaking here not only as the rapporteur but also in my capacity as the spokesman of the European People’s Party, but first of all as the rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen, I earlier appealed to you all to discuss Eurodac and to vote on it today, because Eurodac is a system that finally enables us to implement the Dublin Convention. In this Dublin Convention, that was concluded in 1990, the responsibility is established of a Member State’s competence to deal with an asylum procedure – according to this agreement, the State responsible is the one in which a refugee first finds safe haven. Up to now control has not been possible because it has not been possible clearly to define a person’s identity. In Eurodac, almost ten years later, we have an instrument that makes possible the clear identification of asylum-seekers and also of illegal immigrants. What is its purpose? The aim of Eurodac is to help implement what was agreed in Dublin. The aim of Eurodac is to establish once and for all which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The aim of Eurodac is to prevent multiple applications and thereby also to stop social abuse and indirectly it has the effect of sharing the burden. And that too is something quite essential. Therefore under Eurodac, every Member State is bound to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers, all illegal immigrants who are picked up at the border in order to compare whether an application for asylum has already been submitted anywhere else. The Member States also have the opportunity of fingerprinting illegal immigrants who are found in the Member State itself for the purpose of comparison. In the discussion, that was very long, very good and very pragmatic, a solution was also reached. On the vote in the Committee on the Eurodac system there was full agreement, only the Group of the Greens was against the system as a whole and introduced proposals for amendment that were such as to completely destroy the Eurodac system. They were rejected. There was also full agreement with the Social Democrats on the system, which we were pleased about. There were proposals for amendment, which aimed to raise the age from 14 to 18 and early cancellation was planned if refugee status was attained. There was a majority here, which was against my opinion as the rapporteur. The report as a whole was deemed positive and was adopted in plenary session. That is, in the view of the Committee, with the full support of the Social Democrats as well, in Eurodac we have an instrument for an orderly asylum procedure in Europe and for combating abuse. That is all I wish to say with regard to my function as rapporteur. Now, I will speak in my capacity as the EPP spokesman as well. I am against political groupings always trying to present Eurodac as a system that does not help this monitoring, but is a form of criminalisation because fingerprints are taken. It is not a matter of criminalising somebody, but giving the Member States the responsibility, giving them the duty of dealing with the asylum procedure and also of protecting young people when fingerprints are taken from the age of 14. Because only if we know that they are this age do they of course fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or under the Hague Convention and under the protective measures of the Member States. It therefore has a protective function if we also take the fingerprints of young people and this is in full accord with all the Conventions that we possess. The Greens are against the system and I think that they are simply refusing to face up to reality! They will bear the full responsibility if this system and a proper asylum policy for Europe fail. Let me just say something else, that I consider to be especially important. I have received from Minister Schily – he is the Minister of the Interior in Germany and a Social Democrat – an urgent plea and an appeal for this Eurodac system to become a reality, with which he went against his own Social Democrats here in the House and against all the others who are attempting not to accept this system. It is remarkable when one is asked as a Christian Democrat to undertake something here against the Left in this House. We need the Eurodac system. I am most fervently in favour of it because it takes us towards achieving a common asylum policy for Europe and the Member States are at their wits end over this problem. We also have here a system against asylum abuse, against illegal immigration. If the Social Democrats and the Greens vote against Eurodac, then they will bear full responsibility if there is further asylum abuse and illegal immigration. (Applause)'),(6.214608098422191,6.214608098422191,1000,'Fingerprint',2,1,'1004563.txt','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)','Mr President, first of all let me thank Marietta Giannakou most warmly because she has opened up the opportunity today by means of an exchange, to deal with the vote on Eurodac and thereby to create the conditions under which we can introduce this fingerprint checking. This is a very important report. I should first like to quote some figures so that you have an idea of the scale of the drug trade. First, we are dealing with the drug trade that in the meantime represents 8% of the volume of trade and makes billions in profits at the expense of young people and our families. Within the European Union we annually seize some 600 tonnes of cannabis. As far as the consumption of drugs is concerned, it is a fact that as many as 5 million young people take synthetic drugs and some 20% have tried cannabis. The legal position in Europe is extremely unsatisfactory. In the eyes of the citizens of Europe the battle against drug crime should be treated as an absolute priority. I therefore believe that Marietta Giannakou’s report is especially important and the action plan is something really fundamental that can help us in this field. It contains broad strategies, from prevention to repression to reintegration. It does not allow for any liberalisation or legalisation and sets priorities and brings domestic and foreign policy together in order to be able to combat drugs successfully. These are ambitious goals, but in reality it will not be easy, as up to now it has not been possible to obtain comparable data for individual Member States and to compare the methods and as long as we do not have this comparison of methods and dates it will also not be possible to achieve ‘best practice’ as a model. Prevention has little support and the youth programmes are not designed for support in combating drugs. The European Union makes relatively little money available. So what are the feasible and absolutely essential demands that we must make? The first thing for me is that it is vital for the prevention policy to be intensified. I can see that there is quite a good chance of us attempting on a voluntary basis to declare schools as drug-free areas, to make it clear to schoolchildren through education that a life without drugs should be their main goal. We therefore need the support of the European Union programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Secondly, we must urge the Member States most emphatically that we should finally obtain a standardised system of data and method registration so that it is possible to find the best models in the battle against drugs We must encourage cooperation between the police and the judiciary in the countries of Europe in the battle against drug crime and to protect young people. We must make the European Union programmes such as FALQONE, GROTIUS or OISIN more productive, organise them more efficiently and make more funds available. So with the action plan we have a good programme. It is, however, a matter of getting to work on turning this programme into action in the battle against drugs and for young people and for a drug-free society as a whole. That must be the aim, even if it is very difficult to achieve. (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Finland',8,1,'1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Finland',8,1,'100174.txt','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Finland',8,1,'100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Finland',8,1,'100282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when, on 10 July, a standing ovation greeted the Convention’s adoption, in this room, of the draft constitution, the elation on the one side and the disappointment of the other could not obscure the fact that we had found the highest common denominator for the future of Europe. Now, here it comes again – the Intergovernmental Conference. The bazaar is open to those who trade in national interests. The governments have again seized control of the European constitutional process and act out the wielding of their power in splendour and pomp on a feudal stage, on which they make great affirmations of belief in Europe, whilst behind its scenery, people are already shouting the odds about their national interests. Although the Convention must be silent, now is the time for this House to speak up as the trustee and advocate of this, the greatest possible European consensus. (Applause)  We cannot stand by and watch as this replay of Amsterdam and Nice, perhaps with the outcome of Nice II or Nice III, takes us to the slippery slope and back to the lowest common European denominator. Far from being a task force or a preparatory group composed of motley experts, this Convention was a unique forum of all the national parliaments, including those of the accession countries, including those of Spain and Poland, of all the national governments, including those of Finland and Austria, and it was also a forum for the European institutions, Parliament and the Commission. After eighteen months of negotiation, a great and historic consensus was achieved. Under pressure from the governments, the Convention cut much of it out. The parliaments were represented; it is they, rather than the governments, who are the masters of the treaties, and they wanted to go a good deal further alongside us. Under pressure from the governments, we made great compromises. Now is the time for us, in this House, to remind the governments that negotiations involve such a thing as good faith, and that, at the end of eighteen months of negotiations, you cannot behave as if you were not there and put on a shadow-boxing show that pits large against small and East against West, bearing no relation whatever to reality. I was very much surprised that the President of the Commission had nothing to say about this historic course of events, but large versus small is not Europe’s game. Simply rotating the presidencies of both the Commission and the Council is enough to represent the equality of all countries. It is, though, the attack by the national executives on European parliamentary life that must be combated, and it will be the public who will pay the price. The idea of a Legislative Council was central to the separation of the powers in the European democracy, central to Parliamentary control of the Council, central to the public character of European lawmaking and to the idea of its proximity to the citizen – yet it was disposed of at the first sitting! Disposed of consensually at the first sitting, without asking either the parliaments or the European institutions, all of which had asked for it! This is an attack on the hard-won majority decisions that were to make Europe capable of acting! The European Public Prosecutor, the public nature of lawmaking – this is not shadowboxing; this is an all-out assault on the very idea of Europe’s new architecture as a European democracy and as a great step forward towards its political unification. It is for us in the European Parliament, being also delegates to the Convention, to publicly denounce this national tug-of-war, to do so with all possible determination, and as loudly as we can, so that it is not just nationalism that makes its voice heard in Europe, but also the ideal of political unity! (Applause)'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Finland',8,1,'1004178.txt','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.','We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party (PPE), voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Finland',8,1,'100431.txt','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.','Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a directive on weights in international traffic, which is, of course, not only about weights, but also about dimensions. This is a typical tactic, to have a heading announcing, actually very tersely, what is meant to be at issue, and then, in the directive in question, to proceed to expand on it as a matter of course. I have already for some time now been following with a critical mind developments on European buses, because this wealth of detail was actually far from necessary at a European level. We – and Parliament is at one on this point – are, at the end of the day, fighting for the principle of mutual recognition. We should then, if at all possible, cause the principle of mutual recognition to prevail in fact. Let there be harmonisation only where it is really, absolutely necessary. I wish at this point to commend the directive as an example of how short and precise an overall provision on European buses should be. What I would really like is for this directive to abrogate all other directives on European buses, thus enabling countries and nations to have buses of a design appropriate to their needs, as, of course, a village bus in Sicily\'s hot climate has to look different from a bus in London\'s rush hour or a bus that has to cover great distances in northern Finland. This is where harmonisation is false, costing a lot of money and calling for unnecessary effort. This is where the Commission urgently needs to do some thinking about which areas require voluntary self-regulation and which need standards to be laid down. We have excellent standards committees, but only where they are absolutely necessary do we need framework directives.'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Finland',8,1,'1004396.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!'),(4.8283137373023015,4.8283137373023015,1000,'Finland',8,1,'1004491.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us today the standard European bus directive, on which we adopted a position at first reading. The rapporteur then was Mr Murphy. Murphy\'s Law is of course famous, but I have to say that Mr Murphy did a first-rate job, because he recognised that this directive involves implementing a number of important political principles, namely access for the elderly, children and the disabled. We are fully in agreement with that. We need to do something for those groups: buses and public transport must be accessible to them and we want to put all our combined energies into achieving that objective. So why are we rejecting this directive? Because at first reading the Commission brought forward a proposal comprising over 100 pages of detailed regulations, and during the first reading debate all the groups agreed to reject the directive for reasons of principle. Now the Commission and the Council have come back with their common position, which is not 100 pages long, but 150 pages. At first reading we said that we could imagine at most three pages covering the key political principles. This directive contains some really choice passages of a kind you very rarely find. For example, on page 17 we have Figure 17, which is about permissible configurations for rear corner seats, and shows a plan view of the prescribed seat area, with both rear corner seats, in relation to Annex I Section 7.7.8.6.3.4, and as with aircraft design a maximum radius of 150 mm is prescribed. I know that we in the European Union have set the radius of curvature for bananas and cucumbers and goodness knows what else, but I find it hard to imagine that we now need to set a radius of curvature for the standard European bus. The directive also contains a formula that must even be hard for engineers to understand. I have to say that this document is not a suitable basis for political decision making. So the position is that designers, bus purchasers, consumer protection organisations and also disabled persons\' organisations are in agreement with this directive, but are all very unhappy. They all say that we want to achieve the objective of using disabled-accessible buses in Europe. We in the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats want a new approach here, which quite simply means limiting ourselves to key policy aspects. First of all, that means standards for access for the elderly, for children and for disabled persons. This is extremely important and needs to be guaranteed. Secondly, we want safety standards for drivers and passengers. Thirdly, we want the principle of mutual recognition. The reason this principle of mutual recognition is so important is that a bus obviously needs to be different if it operates in a small poor village in Sicily, where it is very hot, as compared with a bus which has to cope with London\'s rush hour, with millions of passengers and where quite different demands are made of the bus. A bus operating in northern Finland, in conditions of extreme cold and covering great distances would again have to be very different. That is why the Group of the European People\'s Party and European Democrats is calling for the rejection of the common position and is requesting a vote. We believe that it is important for us not to make everything in Europe the same. The European public is also opposed to this desire towards sameness. We wish to see mutual recognition. I have confidence in British, French and German buses, and that is how things should remain.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Finns',1,1,'1004396.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!','Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson\'s viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fire',1,1,'1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fire_department',1,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster; it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly; we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fire_protection',1,1,'1004350.txt','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.','Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union\'s conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today\'s emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years\' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution',6,1,'100168.txt','The position of the non-attached Members on the content of the first two decisions of Parliament regarding the Statute for Members has not changed. In order, however, to put an end to the present inactivity on this issue, we have – against the background of recent negotiations with the Council – agreed to the confirmation of these decisions.','The position of the non-attached Members on the content of the first two decisions of Parliament regarding the Statute for Members has not changed. In order, however, to put an end to the present inactivity on this issue, we have – against the background of recent negotiations with the Council – agreed to the confirmation of these decisions.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution',6,1,'100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution',6,1,'100432.txt','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.','Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution',6,1,'1004468.txt','Madam President, exactly the same applies to this second decision as what you said for the first decision. Two proposed amendments in this second file are of fundamental importance to the Committee on Agriculture, namely Amendments Nos 28 and 29. I therefore again ask the Commission if it has perhaps revised its opinion here.','Madam President, exactly the same applies to this second decision as what you said for the first decision. Two proposed amendments in this second file are of fundamental importance to the Committee on Agriculture, namely Amendments Nos 28 and 29. I therefore again ask the Commission if it has perhaps revised its opinion here.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution',6,1,'1004482.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.','Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one\'s seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members . I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.'),(5.115995809750082,5.115995809750082,1000,'First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution',6,1,'1004620.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad that the House has nevertheless not agreed to the amendment by the Group of the Party of European Socialists aiming at cutting EUR 40 million for the export of live cattle. We, too, are opposed to export subsidies for the transport of live animals for slaughter, but this indiscriminate amendment, which did not distinguish between cattle for breeding or production and animals for slaughter, was lamentably inappropriate. Whilst I am very glad that a majority could not be found to support this amendment, I would like to make it clear that such amendments are detrimental to agriculture, particularly in less-favoured areas.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'First_language',1,1,'10027.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that \'something else\' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Fiscal_policy',4,1,'1004142.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Fiscal_policy',4,1,'1004171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the review process facilitates control, and we should, of course, exert that control to a greater extent. I therefore think that both aspects covered in the Menrad report are important, because peace and security on the one hand and growth and employment on the other are key policy priorities for the European Union. But the review process and target setting release neither the Member States nor the two sides of industry from their main responsibility for employment policy in their countries, because they are specific. Benchmarking has been mentioned. I would like to add a few thoughts here. We are all talking about primarily structural unemployment. There are several indicators of structural unemployment: excessively high labour costs, lack of flexibility in working hours and general employment profile, an underdeveloped services sector, an over-heavy state and bureaucratic regulatory burden, slow rates of innovation and long lead times between scientific findings and implementation in production. So the first step we need to take along this path is to further reduce public debt. In most countries, we are still taking on new debts to pay off old ones. That means mortgaging the future, especially for the younger generation. We need more scope for the investment required for the future. Secondly, we have to combat structural indicators and step up the pace of structural reform, if we really want to bring down unemployment in the long term and not just increase employment figures. Thirdly, we need to give innovation in education policy a boost, because many young people, and also the long-term unemployed, cannot find work on the job market with their qualifications, because they are not yet adequately qualified to cope with new developments in technology. Fourthly, we must make it easier to start up new businesses, and we should support the small and medium-sized companies that provide and create 80% of the jobs in Europe with a harmonised and coordinated fiscal policy, and remove the constraints on starting up new businesses. If we proceed in accordance with the guidelines and these principles, then we will not only increase the number of those in work, but also reduce existing unemployment, and that is our goal.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Fiscal_policy',4,1,'1004308.txt','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.','Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur not only for his work, but also for his willingness to enter into an open dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups. This debate is a seamless continuation of the previous one. I believe that we should view all the arguments as a whole and not as an alternative to the report of the European Central Bank. Right at the beginning of his explanatory statement, the rapporteur wrote the following: ‘Since its more than four years of existence, the euro has become the world\'s second leading currency’. The first reason, he says, is the size of the euro area economy, which accounts for around 16% of world GDP, in comparison with the United States\' 21% and Japan\'s 8%. The second reason he refers to is the stability and growth orientation and economic and monetary union. Whilst his reasons are sound, these are of course also areas that we need to approach with great caution. The euro area is growing. Since its inception we have already gained an additional member, Greece, and we must do our utmost to ensure that the Member States of the European Union are not divided into a eurozone and a non-eurozone, because the euro can make the single market our home market, and because we must do everything to strengthen the single market, to be better able to influence global political events and thus to increase the benefit to the Member States. This involves the new Member States meeting the Maastricht criteria, it involves strengthening the euro area, and it also involves adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and the communitarisation of national economic policies. It must be our objective for all the Member States of the European Union also to be members of the euro area, because only then can we fully exploit the potential of the single market and the single currency. However, this political objective presupposes political will on the part of the Member States and compliance with the criteria. In Paragraph 11 we have very clearly spelt out what is necessary to achieve this, that is to say achieving the Lisbon strategy, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, stronger small and medium-sized enterprises, creative and innovative fiscal reforms, with protectionism outlawed and research and development promoted. If we can stick to what we have agreed we can then make the euro area even stronger, both internally and externally.'),(5.521460917862246,5.521460917862246,1000,'Fiscal_policy',4,1,'1004406.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction, I would first of all like, on behalf of our group, to put it on record that we regard the macroeconomic dialogue as a welcome innovation, because for the first time it obliges all the key players in European economic policy to participate in a direct exchange of views with each other about the overall economic situation. At the same time, we are delighted that Parliament has received this information so soon after the first meeting, although that should go without saying in my view. Secondly, I must add, however, as an Austrian, that this dialogue between social partners, between political institutions, between fiscal policy and those with a political mandate has been going on in a similar way for years in my homeland, Austria, and has made an important contribution to Austria’s present position as an economically successful and socially secure country with a high employment rate and lower jobless figures than others can boast. That should encourage us to take heart for this dialogue. There are a lot of things that we too need to reform and there is some room for improvement. The previous speaker touched upon this – the dialogue can only prepare, accompany and supplement. It is no substitute for policies. It does not relieve those in positions of responsibility from their specific obligations. The dialogue is a supplementary component of the many and various measures for growth and employment. And for precisely that reason I would also like to point out that this debate fits into the overall framework of these two plenary sittings. Our debates during these two days include the Smet report on working time and the Menrad reports on employment policy in the Member States in 1999 and 2000. And tomorrow’s agenda includes a debate on Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s question about the strategy for the European internal market, while last week in Strasbourg, in connection with the ECB report, there was a debate about how the macroeconomic dialogue with Parliament could be deepened and reinforced. That request has been taken on board in our report. I do not think that anyone would argue that comprehensive and coherent strategies are needed for growth and employment, and I am glad that the term growth and employment itself deals with the prejudice we so often hear from the left to the effect that growth can be set against employment, and that currency values and price stability can be set against employment measures. The dialogue and the name of this dialogue show that we are all in the same boat. It is a question of being willing to take an overall view and to accept overall responsibility. The macroeconomic dialogue is a constructive way of tackling urgent problems. I therefore call on everyone involved to take part in this macroeconomic dialogue in a responsible manner and to accept this responsibility for the economic and employment policy future of Europe. We must eliminate constraints on growth and on business start-ups. We must fight the mood of pessimism and deliberate scare-mongering with a new intellectual, innovative, up-beat approach, and I hope that this dialogue will help us do what is needed at the right time, in an open and responsible fashion, and that it does not mean that mundane political opportunism or legitimate group interests will result in our obstructing each other.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Fiscal_year',3,1,'1004525.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire  is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Fiscal_year',3,1,'1004591.txt','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3% the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.','Mr President, we passed the budget yesterday and the steps that you decided ought to be taken in Category 4 will be very important in terms of Europe’s future. Commissioner, we are today discussing a form of special aid that will serve, in essence, to promote the stabilisation of a part of the world which could cause problems for us too, if we fail to get involved there. It is our duty to ensure that in Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia, greater store is set by democracy, the market economy and security issues in future. There was severe hyperinflation in Tajikistan during the civil war and the country’s production output was down by two-thirds. One can only imagine what kind of impact this has on family units and individuals living in such a country. In 1997 there was economic growth again of an unprecedented 1.7%. National economic growth of production output was 5.3%; the starting point being a very low base level of course, as I have already mentioned. In December 1998 inflation fell to below 3%, i.e. it was possible to detect a degree of stabilisation here as well, and in the 1998 financial year the balance of payments including invisible trade rose from 5.5 to at least 15.2% of Gross Domestic Product. The fact that the country has outstanding debts totalling USD 1,263 million, that is to say, 98% of GDP, is, of course, a major problem; it is clear that the situation has been pushed to the limit. Since Tajikistan is the poorest country amongst the Newly Independent States, it is up to us to combat the poverty in which the children and family units live there, and particularly in the run-up to Christmas, it behoves those of us that live in comfort to think of those that do not enjoy the standard of living that we do today. I therefore believe that we need to have clearly defined programmes which have certain conditions attached, and of course that usage of these programmes must be founded on existing legal bases. What we are most concerned about here is ensuring that the budgetary control stipulations are adhered to. Of course, we must also realise that the grants that are provided must be made conditional on orderly elections taking place. Elections are prospectively set for March 2000 and what we are concerned about is giving Tajikistan the incentive to push democracy through. It is important from the point of view of the people for disputes not to be dealt with on the streets or in a civil war but in the parliaments between the different groups playing by the same rules. I believe that Europe could serve as a very useful model for all the regions in question, with a view to achieving a functioning market economy, that is to say a socio-economic market economy, establishing democratic conditions and seeing to it that the citizen can rest assured that conflicts will be dealt with in the parliaments and that there will be security, and I believe that we need to export our concept of security rather than import crime from these countries. Whilst we might well feel ourselves to be secure here in this Parliament, in fact four women were murdered a few days ago in the vicinity of Strasbourg. So even if we suppose ourselves to be secure, we should still not let a single day pass without ensuring people’s security in their daily lives, both in Europe and in countries such as Armenia and Georgia.  I would therefore like to conclude by extending my sincere thanks to all my fellow MEPs and also people that I work alongside, because it is quite evident that we are more than willing to take on responsibilities outside Europe and that we worry about peace in this world. That is why I was particularly delighted that we were able to hand our President the Bethlehem light of peace yesterday. I hope that peace will be with us over the Christmas period and that we also have before us the prospect of living in peace in the new millennium.'),(5.809142990313028,5.809142990313028,1000,'Fiscal_year',3,1,'1004635.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.','Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fishery',1,1,'1004411.txt','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission\'s proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture\'s contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)'),(13.815510557964274,6.907755278982137,1000,'Fissile_material',1,2,'1004299.txt','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)','Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU\'s position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams\' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Flag_of_convenience',1,1,'100439.txt','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.','Mr President, allow me to start with a preliminary comment, not on the subject of Austria, but on another political matter. The French Presidency changed its political presence here in the House prior to the reports on the two candidate countries of Cyprus and Malta. I trust that this is not an indication of how the grande nation intends to treat small partners; it would be the wrong signal. But now to the right signals. Elmar Brok rightly started his intervention by saying that we all stand to benefit from enlargement, especially those of us on this side of the current external borders. Commissioner Verheugen, you rightly stressed that it was no longer a question of if, but of how and when enlargement will take place. But it is precisely with the “how” and “when” that we need to ensure that enlargement is prepared carefully and implemented seriously, in order to guarantee its success. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has tried, within its remit, to take account of two sub-sectors which Mr Brok addressed and which must be borne in mind if enlargement is to be a success. We have just heard something about the “carrot” in the regional policy and promotion sector. If that is our classification, then transport and tourism come in the “stick” category, because in this sector we have a huge amount of acquis and it will be a question – and I shall come back to this – of actually applying this acquis . But first a reminder that transport infrastructure will be instrumental to the success of enlargement. A huge internal market with over 500 million European consumers needs transport routes if it is to function. Some of the infrastructure is already in place, at least in one half of the future Union. Here we have developed and are in the process of improving the basic infrastructure needed in the form of TEN. We must make similar arrangements and, more importantly, we must forge connections with central and eastern Europe. The TINA report covers these prospects. The financial perspectives make provision for some of the funds. Whether or not they will suffice remains to be seen; in any event a sound basis has been laid for the candidate countries with PHARE, ISPA and other funding programmes. But there must also be a sound basis and it is particularly important for the infrastructure to be created in the candidate countries, in order to ensure that acceptance of the Community acquis is not and does not just remain acceptance on paper. The committee has basically endeavoured in the individual transport strategies to highlight the most important aspects. There are two very important aspects in connection with road and rail transport which deserve special mention here: as regards road transport, which has already been liberalised and opened up to an extensive degree, care must be taken to ensure on accession that the provisions of Community employment, social, fiscal and tax legislation are actually applied in each Member State because, if they are not, this will lead to distortions of the market in the European Union and in the candidate countries which, where possible, we shall then have to spend a great deal of money rectifying. Similar early action is needed and will be needed in order to join the western and eastern European railway network and render them compatible. We must ensure that the present rail infrastructure in central and eastern Europe is not replaced by road transport, resulting in a great deal of effort at a later date in an attempt to put things right. Internal waterway transport will be important for environmental reasons, because we must get heavy freight off the roads and, if it cannot be carried by rail, then we must use waterways. Once Malta and Cyprus join, the Union will have the biggest merchant fleet in the world. It is important that it should not just become a flag of convenience and that all measures prescribed in the acquis are taken to ensure that safety is writ large. We do not want to live through another accident like the Erika . There is a series of further points which the Regional Committee has mentioned in its report. I hope that the candidate countries and we too will take them to heart.');
INSERT INTO `mv_tfidf` VALUES (6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Flashback_(narrative)',1,1,'100422.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy we have drafted detailed regulations we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in view of the vast number of reports before us for discussion, I would like to make some fundamental observations, as Commissioner Vitorino has done. If we briefly review the past year in flashback, we can clearly see that we have, as rarely before, made progress in the area of internal security, even before 11 September. We have laid down the political guidelines on immigration and asylum policy; we have drafted detailed regulations; we have, in these areas, taken steps to deal with illegal immigration and also prepared for intensive judicial cooperation; and, after lengthy discussions, have even implemented a directive on money laundering. Progress has been made; it was heavy going, but we succeeded in moving ahead. We owe this in particular to the way Parliament and the Commission work so well together; they have led us to these very advances. Many thanks, Commissioner Vitorino! There were more, indeed dramatic, developments after the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September. The Member States\' ministers – both of justice and of home affairs – appear at last to have woken up, with the consequence that the counter-terrorism package, which instituted Europol\'s joint investigation teams, could be wrapped up with the sole exception of the European arrest warrant, and I wish to express congratulations to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President-in-Office Verhofstadt for having brought about a settlement that may eventually make it possible to implement the European arrest warrant. The package of measures extends to the freezing of the money and other assets of suspicious organisations, as this will make it possible to sever the arteries of terrorism and organisations of a criminal nature. Renewed consideration, though, has led indirectly to greater security, one example being our most recent discussions here, in which we urged that a visa should in future be carried in exactly the same way as a residence permit, a document in its own right and unambiguously indicating the identity of the bearer. This is a plus for security, an added value which we have achieved through our discussions here. Our concern must, however, be with pressing the Member States to speedily implement all the measures we have decided on. I would, though, also like to use this opportunity to highlight some less positive developments. The working conditions in this House are, as a rule, among them. Cooperation with the Council leaves something to be desired. It is increasingly the case that documents are presented too late or not at all, resulting in Parliament and the committees discussing castles in the air. In important committee meetings, but also in the plenary sittings, the Council is frequently conspicuous by its absence. Monday was the classic example; in the Committee on Citizens\' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, we met specifically to have important debates on the European arrest warrant and on cooperation with the United States, which involved an exchange of letters between Presidents Bush and Prodi. The Council distinguished itself by not being present, and there was no written material for discussion. Putting it mildly, that is unacceptable from the point of view of cooperation here. Take one look at the timetables and you will know that they result in impossible working conditions. We are increasingly getting documents at the last moment. This is not on. We want to make speedy progress, but not at the expense of quality. (Applause)'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Flat_tax',1,1,'1004529.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Flavor',1,1,'1004577.txt','Mr President, in the course of this discussion on the Klaß report, I have been unable to comprehend why some people have persistently confused the terms ‘genotype’ and ‘genetic modification’. This has actually hampered the discussion because ‘genotype’ is a prototype in wine, and wine growing is an extremely varied and dynamic sector characterised by long-established traditions and ancient cultures. Vine material provides the basis for optimum grape and wine production in terms of quality, class and quantity. Therefore we need these types of vine in order to preserve the variety of the wine, in terms of characteristic flavour, and to prevent cut-price enterprises from undermining this regional variety of vine propagating material and working against it.','Mr President, in the course of this discussion on the Klaß report, I have been unable to comprehend why some people have persistently confused the terms ‘genotype’ and ‘genetic modification’. This has actually hampered the discussion because ‘genotype’ is a prototype in wine, and wine growing is an extremely varied and dynamic sector characterised by long-established traditions and ancient cultures. Vine material provides the basis for optimum grape and wine production in terms of quality, class and quantity. Therefore we need these types of vine in order to preserve the variety of the wine, in terms of characteristic flavour, and to prevent cut-price enterprises from undermining this regional variety of vine propagating material and working against it.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Flax',1,1,'1004329.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to join in thanking the rapporteur, as the work he has done here is most valuable. The BSE crisis and the resultant ban on the use of animal bonemeal in feed have significantly increased the demand for replacement source of protein in the area of animal feedingstuffs. The shortage of plant protein is made a live issue by the EU\'s low level of self-sufficiency, to which reference is often made these days. This situation makes a European protein plan urgently necessary in order to promote the cultivation of protein plants, thereby reducing our dependence on imports and giving us more varied sources of supply. I would bring to your attention the fact that the EU, the most significant importer in the world, gets by far and away most of its plant proteins from the USA, Argentina and Brazil, and that these are very often genetically modified ones. Our concern here is not only with the cultivation of soya and rape, but to an equal degree with seed flax, camelina and many other plant proteins. It is for that reason that I attach particular importance to the products\' traceability, in order for transparency to give consumers choice, quality and confidence that the food is safe. Over and above this, the cultivation of protein-rich cultures contributes to the diversity of crop rotation by making it possible to reduce input and by preventing the rise of monocultures. If it were possible to utilise set-aside areas, that would be a practical approach. Whilst, of course, safeguarding Budget neutrality, it is not only cultivation of organic areas that needs to be promoted, as the Commission proposes, but conventional agriculture should also have the opportunity to cultivate plant proteins, fodder legumes and so on, in their fields, benefiting from the EU\'s environmental programmes. The production of oilseeds for use in biofuels and building materials gives, in fact, further significant impetus to agriculture. What I seek at the international level is for the Blair House agreement to be at last seriously reconsidered and for all parties to see the urgent necessity of facilitating the production of plant protein in the EU in accordance with the regulations. I do believe that a genuinely serious discussion on this has to be set in train at European level, for we are well aware that biofuels are environmentally friendly and can also be produced without prior energy input. Whilst remaining within the financial framework, the EU needs to promote the use of plants in protein production with the minimum possible delay, in order to secure an independent supply of protein for farmers and European agriculture, facilitate energy generation and thus reduce our dependence on fossil energy. We are all aware that Europe imports something like 60% of its energy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Flea_market',1,1,'100148.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Flextime',1,1,'1004277.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.','Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I think that the Commission\'s draft regulation illustrates perfectly that the view held by many members that employment policy always plays second fiddle to economic policy is simply not true. We need both, one presupposes the other. There is no contradiction between competition policy, growth policy and the need to grant aid to certain sectors, as this regulation clearly illustrates. We realise that aid has to act as an incentive and help bridge the way to self-help. Aid is no substitute for economic policy and a well-ordered employment policy. We still think the best way of creating jobs is to have a functioning internal market, to implement the stability and growth pact, to pursue the Lisbon objectives and to introduce the four freedoms, a deregulated and more flexible employment market and an education system which encourages lifelong learning, diversification of skills and continuing learning. We welcome this regulation because it says yes to systemisation, simplification and bundling, yes to control and transparency, with the help of the aid register, yes to regulated employment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the pillars of European economic and employment policy, and because it says yes to greater coordination between the Commission\'s policy and the policies of the Member States and between ministries in the Member States. We have already moved in this direction in Austria, for example, by successfully merging the ministries of labour and the economy into a single ministry. I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for sending out a clear signal in your statements on aid and the floods that your aid policy takes account of regional differences in economic, competition and employment policy.'),(6.907755278982137,6.907755278982137,1000,'Flight_recorder',1,1,'1004416.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time transport policy was a poor relation in European policy. In plain language, for a long time nothing happened at all. It required a judgment by default from the European Court of Justice for things slowly to start inching forward, step by step. Admittedly, we have seen some movement on air and maritime transport in recent years – this is pleasing, and we are grateful for this, not least to the Commissioner – but the tragic events off the Spanish coast have shown that we are still a long way from where we actually should be. It is above all in the sector that is being discussed here and now that we are still a long way from where we should be, namely in the rail sector. Much ought to have been done here in the last few years and it still has not been done, including establishing genuine coordination between the Member States. Mr Jarzembowski has already pointed out that the rail sector is the only one in which the internal market is not a reality. I would perhaps express this in even stronger terms: where rail is concerned we have probably not even started to make it a reality. That is why the necessary balance between the individual modes of transport is still lacking. This has also been mentioned once already today. It cannot be stressed often enough. The results are as bad as you would expect, particularly between road and rail where the gulf is tending to widen in the absence of sensible joint solutions. The European rail system and its connection to the system in the candidate countries, which will soon be members of this Union, needs to be revitalised and made to work; otherwise a lot more will go wrong on our railways and we will have even more problems than we do now. As an Austrian I am not only referring to transit across the Brenner Pass and the Alps; essentially this applies to all regions of Europe, all of which are sensitive to a greater or lesser degree, not only those that have been under intensive discussion over the last few days. In this context, I should like, en passant , to apprise you of one fact, which is not without interest, because unfortunately it is never adequately taken into consideration in the discussion: the Austrian railways are the only ones to have increased their share of the freight market in the last few years. All of our other neighbouring countries have continued to let road strengthen its lead over rail. Now what is at issue specifically in the Ainardi report, for which I was also responsible as shadow rapporteur? Interoperability should and must be made a reality across the entire network. We cannot concentrate, as we did originally, on individual parts of the network – high-speed lines and so forth – and treat them separately. We have to try actually to find one single structure, obviously with the necessary exemptions for regional railways – if they really are regional railways – for heritage railways and others. When it comes to drafting and adopting these technical specifications we must firstly bear in mind that this is not the job of the European legislator, but that specialists must set to work on these, and European politicians are only called on to monitor progress. What is important here are reasonable costs and a high degree of safety. Both aspects have been addressed often enough here today. I do not need to emphasise this particularly, but I do think that we should take them seriously. Where safety is concerned, I would specifically point out that we have now tabled a proposal to extend the black box system to the railways. This means that we also want to make progress on research, so as to ensure that in the long term we arrive where we need to arrive, at a functioning European transport system. (Applause)'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Flood',9,1,'1001125.txt','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.'),(9.421061403289835,4.710530701644918,1000,'Flood',9,2,'1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.'),(9.421061403289835,4.710530701644918,1000,'Flood',9,2,'100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Flood',9,1,'100128.txt','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Flood',9,1,'100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?'),(14.131592104934754,4.710530701644918,1000,'Flood',9,3,'1004115.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members\' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission\'s immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas\' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.'),(4.710530701644918,4.710530701644918,1000,'Flood',9,1,'1004216.txt','Mr President, members of the Commission, honourable Members, as you have already heard, my homeland, Austria, has suffered damage to the tune of EUR 7 500 million. I personally have cleaned up, evacuated and shovelled in Upper and Lower Austria, as have many of us here and thousands, literally thousands outside this House. Together we have witnessed the material need and mental anguish caused by this disaster, which has pushed people to the brink and wiped out houses, streets and businesses. Many only realised just how bad things were once the fire brigade, the army and the emergency services had left. I should like on behalf of a great many people to thank the authorities, the communes, the Länder, the governments of the Member States, the European Union and the volunteers and, as the chairman of a social organisation, the Österreichisches Hilfswerk , which is one of the eight organisations distributing donor money, to thank the thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of donors. Civil society has proven its worth and has come up trumps. But its job is not yet done. The Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Schüssel, estimated yesterday that 70% of the damage has been recorded and EUR 65 – 70 million paid out directly. The leader of the Austrian delegation, Ursula Stenzel, took the initiative of tabling a joint resolution by Austrian members, which has been included in the joint resolution by the European Parliament. There is no need to define this disaster it has already taken place, which is why the European Parliament is calling for emergency aid of EUR 1 billion for the flood area. We are calling for flexibility in the aid regulation, we are calling for Structural Fund resources to be reallocated, we are calling for the national cofinancing portion to be reduced, we are calling for national limits on aid to be lifted and we are calling for emergency aid to be paid out quickly we want specific dates, not just promises. May I close by thanking all the honourable Members for the tone of this debate. There has been no playing victims off against non-victims, north against south, Member States against candidate countries, budget figures against each other, projects against new plans. It is clear from the debate that we need to act because we are all in the same boat. It is a good example of political maturity and of a willingness to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words, to help ensure there are no delays, that action is taken in the short term and that a new approach is taken in the long term. (Applause)','Mr President, mem